This tree is proclaimed to be the oldest known living thing on Earth. Nearly 5,000 years old! Only 5,000 years old, this sure fits into the Biblical perspective!
The Methuselah tree is no longer the oldest living tree. Prometheus beat it out a few years ago, and
this tree crushes it at over 9,000 years old.
Even supposing Methuselah was the oldest, that's not evidence of anything other than pure coincidence. There are millions of examples of radiometric dating which proves things to be millions of years old. You, of course, reject ALL of those out of hand but stick to a single tree that couldn't even be considered circumstantial evidence?
You have no objections in using dates that conform to your beliefs about the biblical record, but reject any other dates that refute it?
Confirmation bias much?
These type of environmental conditions may have certainly been prevalent before the Great Flood.
Certainly??? Evidence please.
As far as all processes for dating are concerned, I will repeat myself again. ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results.
So I guess we should just stop using science altogether then, eh?
The dates for the Carboniferous are purely rubbish! Additionally, that wasn’t what I was trying to prove. I was proving from that website that living things grew bigger because of the OXYGEN content of the early atmosphere which also grew more and bigger plants and trees that the animals and insects ate
If you're going to remain consistent with this statement:
quote:
ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results
You are going to have to provide justification for how you know that the oxygen content in the past was greater than it is today, yet all other tests that point away from a Young Earth model are unreliable. How do you explain that?
As far as my book goes, I am not here to sell it as some claim. I am here to get the GOOD WORD out. People have been dumbed-down and I am here to reeducate.
It sounds very condescending to tell actual scientists (of which this forum has many) that they need to be re-educated by a woman who wraps wire around objects and thinks it proves God.
Everything that I have written still stands firm! Nobody here has made any sort of strong dent in disclaiming anything that I have said thus far.
Anita, you don't even make any sense. These are ramblings. If no one has refuted what you're saying, it's because what you're saying is incoherent. It's like trying to decipher the slurred speech of a drunk. It only makes sense in your mind. I can assure you no credible scientist would look at your "work" as if it were worth a damn. I'm sorry, but you suffer from a particularly bad case of delusions of grandeur.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
™ Version 4.2