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:
It's your choice: reality or delusion.
{abe} I see you have your wish to move to Faith & Belief. Good. Now how about you doing more in participation debate wise than just repetitious bald assertions.
If you insist on posting the same thing over and over there is no point in responding to a single post of yours. If that is what you want your thread to be, go ahead.
If you are only interested in discussing the museum in the context of the bible then gosh: it shows what the bible says. Whoopeee. You could also talk about going to Church.
I'm interested in discussing how you think this is anything valid when there are KNOWN LIES included as well. If you don't want to address that issue there is nothing for anyone to say to you that is not from the club of gullible easily deluded ignorant folk that will willingly part with their cash for any scam like this.
I think you'll find it lonely your way. I see no reason to be a sounding board for someone who acts like a spoiled child.{/abe}
4.5 years is not that old! (har har) What you think natural science can detect is interesting. How nice.
So I dropped billion when I typed it - mea culpa. If this is the best of your argument, however it is a blank.
Well, OK, I see that you don't want to discuss the exhibits in the museums, but the concepts of creation/evolution in general.
False. Read for comprehension.1 I want to discuss the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. The actual age of the earth is one. Consider this: it is easy to find evidence for a young earth in a very old one (all you have to do is look in the areas of new volcanic rocks etc) but it should be impossible to find evidence for an old earth in a very young one. This evidence exists.
Maybe you can address some of the facts of this thread. If we get a green light to go ballistic, and take off the gloves, and go 15 rounds, and have a free for all, why, maybe I can entertain the idea of taking you down a few pegs. Meanwhile, back on topic.
Totally irrelevant. What I want to discuss is the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. If you want to make it a "great debate" so that it is only the two of us that is okay. The topic will be "Actual Age of the Earth Invalidates Creation Museum Displays on AGE and FLOOD". I'll present the evidence step by step and allow you a chance to refute it or show that it is wrong.
List 2 known lies in the museum, so we can see what you mean.
(1) The age of the earth is 6000 years (2) The world wide flood occurred within that time or any close approximation
You really must be having trouble with comprehension1 as I have listed these before. There are others (the grand canyon was formed by the flood), but these are sufficient for now.
I'll even deal with these together if you care to play.
Enjoy.
1 - in case you have trouble with comprehension of "comprehension:"
You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat!
This is in Faith & Belief forum, so you have the most lax level of criteria for providing substantiation and validation for your position.
Well perhaps sorting it out in order might be better. First, deal with the exhibits already raised first by me.
I think the exhibits you mentioned probably did a good job of representing to stories as written in the bible, and I have no quibble with those, just as I have no real quibble with christianity in general. These exhibits would be good for non-YEC's as much as they are for YEC's. THus I'll give them a pass and move on to the ones that deal with YEC information -- ie the age of the earth and a literal flood concept -- which are not necessarily endorsed by all christians: fair enough?
We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree"
quote:Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located at approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism; the coordinates cited refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.
Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.
This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.
Any Comment so far?
{ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE}
Re: Age of the Earth, in simple steps, time running out on this thread
Keys,
This thread is nearing the point where it will be cut off (around 300 post limit to all threads) so I have proposed a new topic on just this element.
If you want to keep it out of the science threads (you were pretty firm on the existing thread that it not be science forum) we can do a Great Debate on this or put it in Faith and Belief (with the original thread). Great Debate means just you and me on the thread, so there wouldn't be a lot of other people piling up on you.
The purpose of the thread for me will to present evidence for the case that the age of the earth as portrayed in the museum is false and that a global flood could not have occurred withing that time (or any reasonable approximation), and for you to defend the age and flood occurrence as portrayed.
Re: Age of the Earth, in simple steps, time running out on this thread
1) No interruptions, till the thread reaches at least 301 post, without a bunch of space wasting mod comments taking up 50 posts, or whatnot.
2) No suspensions, or bans, etc for the entire thread allowed.
3) An honest attempt to debate.
I think we could agree to that under the great debate guidelines (moderation is usually a minimum there and there would be no other posters wasting space) with the caveat that one or the other of us could be suspended for behavior on another thread (I have been and likely will again ... ) - this will be mostly a quid pro quo posting so we'd have to wait for the other to respond anyway.
Since the topic would be broad, no need to limit it to museums. More of an age of the earth, and limits of science type thing.
Sure we can keep going once the age in the museum has been shown to be a false representation and that no flood occurred in that time frame or what is reasonably similar.
) - this will be mostly a quid pro quo posting so we'd have to wait for the other to respond anyway.
™ Version 4.2
