|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2004 : 13:49:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If I remember correctly, not one of these claims are supported by the references provided. Coffin, an oft-cited creationist source, only counts 791 trees in table 2, and most of those will not have been sliced open in order to count the rings.
Now, some might argue that verlch is simply engaging in youthful hyperbole (by three or more orders of magnitude), but it seems to me that it simply isn't within the "rules" of this sort of discussion to exaggerate claims so outrageously. Perhaps if verlch limited himself to only those claims which could be supported by evidence of any sort (either scientific or creationist), we'd be able to have a truly interesting discussion. I don't think it's possible while he appears to be spewing "facts" from his own imagination.
And thus, we must try to encourage him to think criticly, whether he remains a YEC or not. What other reason or purpose does this site have?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2004 : 20:49:27 [Permalink]
|
The bible says when God's Spirit moved on the face of the deep of the earth, that the earth was 'void' and without 'form.'
Who's to say how long it was 'void' and without 'form.'? Only God knows, that could explain the varios lava action over the years. There are volcanic eruptions on planets far from earth. That could explain the layers and lots of things you claim. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 05:34:45 [Permalink]
|
I was actually thinking about the whole "millions of trees" thing and tried to work out the math. (I don't have a dissertation to write, right?)
Let's say that there are 2 million trees. Let's further say that it takes one second to count one ring on one tree, and ten seconds to walk from one tree to another (including setting up or readying equipment and such). Finally, let's assume that the people doing the counting didn't count all trees, but did a sampling of, say, just 10% of the trees. If so, then:
200,000 number of trees counted
400,000,000 total rings counted
2,010 total seconds to count each tree's rings
401,999,990 total number of seconds to count all trees (that is to say 200,000*2,010)
6,700,000 total number of minutes (rounded up)
111,667 total number of hours (rounded up)
18,611 total number of days (rounded up)
51 total number of years (rounded up, and assuming trees are counted every day for 6 hours a day)
Thus, even if 10 people took part in the study, it would have taken 10 years just to count the rings (but not including the time to drive to the site, do analysis, write the article, etc.). To be sure, some studies do take a long time, but let's be honest: is it plausible to assume that a group of people worked every day in this project for a collective 51 years? I doubt it. Certainly not without a bit more fanfare than what Dave W has observed (that is, if it happened, then we could imagine that the various pro-creation magazines would have made a bigger deal of making the results known). |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/12/2004 05:52:29 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 05:50:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
The bible says when God's Spirit moved on the face of the deep of the earth, that the earth was 'void' and without 'form.'
So you're still avoiding any direct debate, eh? But before you change the subject (again), answer this: what the hell is "the deep"? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 07:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
The bible says when God's Spirit moved on the face of the deep of the earth, that the earth was 'void' and without 'form.'
Who's to say how long it was 'void' and without 'form.'? Only God knows, that could explain the varios lava action over the years. There are volcanic eruptions on planets far from earth. That could explain the layers and lots of things you claim.
Of course! Volcanism easily and accuratly explains lots of layers, and these are the layers that are used in radiometric dating due to the elements that they contain. For example, you cannot date a sand or limestone strata by it's self. But if there has been volcanism within that strata, a presice age measurement can taken. Volcanism on other planets and even the moons of other planets, is pretty much a given. Indeed, it would be a suprise if there was not.
I'm assuming that you are refering to the beginning of universe when you use the quote, "The earth was void and without form." Here we have a whole, 'nother subjest from evolution. It's cosmology, and I really am not knowledgable enough of the topic to speak on it. However, I will say that, as the universe is infinant, there are an infinant number of possibilites as to it's formation.
Big Bang theory; God did it; it was farted into existance by the Invisable, Pink Unicorn during a bout of colic; and so forth. Nobody really knows for sure how the universe formed and the scientists studying it will be the first to tell you exactly that. It is concievable that we will never know. But, they're working on it. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 11:03:49 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
And thus, we must try to encourage him to think criticly, whether he remains a YEC or not. What other reason or purpose does this site have?
I absolutely agree, which is why I don't consider these exchanges to be a waste of time, generally.
However, verlch appears to not have any interest at all in thinking critically. His latest post, as noted by Cuneiformist, is an example of his rejection of every single attempt to talk with him, instead of to him. He didn't even bother to acknowledge that there were any replies at all to his offering of references. We still don't know what, precisely, he's trying to prove with these various assertions, because verlch apparently won't deign to even reply to requests for clarification.
Oh, Cuneiformist: you forgot to take into account the amount of time it takes to slice into a petrified tree in such a way that the rings can be counted. Weathering of exposed trunks will make counting impossible, and the things are rock-hard, so one would need to use a pretty damn big diamond saw to get a nice finished face on which all the rings will be visible. If I remember correctly, it took a friend and I about 10 minutes to cut through a paltry 3-inch geode - which was hollow! - so getting through 40 or more inches of petrified trunk (for a 1,000-year-old tree?) is going to take a large chunk of time, all by itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 11:33:36 [Permalink]
|
True and true, Dave. But if it were too easy, it wouldn't be any fun, now would it? Verlch will or will not begin his considerations in his own, good time.
As I recall, to count the rings, the fossilized piece must not only be carefully sawn, it must also be polished to get an accurat count. Not polished to gemstone quality mind you, although I've seen petrified wood jewlery that was striking, but enough that the rings stand out clearly with a minimum of saw scores from the kerf. Doing millions of fossil trees in this way is patently ridiculous when only a few will suffice to determine whatever the researcher is looking for. Plus, I don't think that millions have been found to start with (correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm waiting for a report of a fossilized, ivory billed woodpecker stunk to a stone log. Considering their dino nonsense, I'd not be suprised if ICR came up with one. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 12:34:41 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
True and true, Dave. But if it were too easy, it wouldn't be any fun, now would it? Verlch will or will not begin his considerations in his own, good time.
I know that, but feel it's important to also talk about why things like this are so frustrating. I mean, I lost my temper, Kil talked about closing the thread. Cuneiformist took a step back - a deep breath some of us were missing - and basically said "let's take this one step at a time." But then verlch, with his latest post, pretty much said "no."
We're either supposed to infer that he's got no response to our prior posts, and so has moved on, or we're supposed to infer that our replies were failures not worth mentioning, and so he's moved on. Or, we're supposed to infer that he's flighty, and has moved on, or that he's simply lost interest in petrified trees, and moved on. Whatever it was that prompted him to start talking about a completely different subject, it has more-or-less demonstrated that communications in this thread is one way, at best. We talk, and he does whatever it is he wants to.
But still, we try...
verlch, please support your implied assertion that the events recorded in the Bible actually happened. I do not agree with the premise that the Bible is historically accurate regarding events for which there is no evidence outside the Bible. Also, the generally-recognized definitions of the words 'void' and 'without form' contradict the idea of a physical Earth at all, so one which is undergoing much volcanism - or a blob of cooling magma, for that matter - do not fit the Biblical description. A blob, after all, is a form, and not a void. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2004 : 17:36:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, Cuneiformist: you forgot to take into account the amount of time it takes to slice into a petrified tree in such a way that the rings can be counted. Weathering of exposed trunks will make counting impossible, and the things are rock-hard, so one would need to use a pretty damn big diamond saw to get a nice finished face on which all the rings will be visible. If I remember correctly, it took a friend and I about 10 minutes to cut through a paltry 3-inch geode - which was hollow! - so getting through 40 or more inches of petrified trunk (for a 1,000-year-old tree?) is going to take a large chunk of time, all by itself.
Oh right! For some reason, I (stupidly!) assumed that the sampling of trees would somehow be immadiatley available for counting-- as though someone had, before petrification, cut them all down to nice 3-foot high stumps (perhaps they were the ones Noah used to make his ark...). Calculating the cutting efforts for 200,000 trees adds quite a bit to the numbers. Even if you allow for some impossibly low number-- say, 10 minutes per tree-- you're going to add well over a million minutes to the process. That means tens of thousands of hours, meaning perhaps another ten to fifteen years to the whole thing. It looks even less likely that we can talk about "millions" of petrified trees, as verlch has asserted in his initial post. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2004 : 03:05:24 [Permalink]
|
It is possible, even probable that these trees, how ever many there are, died in a volcanic event, much like the forests around Mt. St. Helen. Yellowstone is actually a huge caldera (and, if what I've read on it is accruate, overdue for an eruption of some sort. We should sacrifice a virgin ASAP. Somebody go find a virgin).
Those trees that were not destroyed were buried in ash and over time, some percentage became mineralized. Geological forces broke the fossils up a bit and erosion brought them to where they are today, does that not sound reasonable?
Our friend verlch has fallen into the trap of expounding upon a subject that he obviously knows nothing about. Worse yet, he fell into it here, where lots of us know something about it and keep up with the latest data. I wonder where he got his misinformation. It can't all be from studying the Bible, so one would think that he's been listening to someone else at least as poorly informed in the fields of science as himself. But in his defense I must remind; he did come up with some cites, awful as they were. That is something of an improvement over undiluted ranting.
Now, if we can just get him to actually read what we post.......
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2004 : 11:46:32 [Permalink]
|
| Well with all of the millions of trees petrifed and billions of years that have passed, in your 'scientific' minds. There should be a least one really, really old fossilized tree, buried deep in the earth. Thus proving your billion year ideals! Without it you are just another 'missing link.' |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2004 : 12:51:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Well with all of the millions of trees petrifed and billions of years that have passed, in your 'scientific' minds. There should be a least one really, really old fossilized tree, buried deep in the earth. Thus proving your billion year ideals! Without it you are just another 'missing link.'
Umm, I seem to be missing something here. What, exactly, does the age of a tree at its death have to do with the amount of time that's passed since the tree died?
If a fossilized tree (or indeed any lifeform)is found in a location which dates to, say, 1 mya, is it somehow less authentic if it was only, say, 100 years old when it died than if it were 4,000 years old at its death?
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2004 : 13:35:14 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Well with all of the millions of trees petrifed and billions of years that have passed, in your 'scientific' minds. There should be a least one really, really old fossilized tree, buried deep in the earth.
Why do you say "should"? What reasoning brings you to such a conclusion? Can we use the same reasoning to conclude that we "should" find a fossilized domestic cat which lived to be 50? If so, such a train of thought is rickety, at best.
And as for the "billions of years" bit, the first forests emerged only 400 million years ago. Evolutionary theory does not assume that every species which exists now has always existed, unlike the creationists and the Bible. Using your assumptions to challenge our ideas is a bad place to start.quote:
Thus proving your billion year ideals!
No, finding really old trees doesn't prove anything except that they were really old when they died. The fact that they may be buried deep in the Earth is evidence that the planet is more than 6,000 years old, no matter how old the trees were. A fossilized ten-year-old tree which can be dated to 100 million years ago would demonstrate a minimum age for the Earth of 100 million years. Same with a one-year-old tree. The age of the trees is not important.quote:
Without it you are just another 'missing link.'
No, there are many lines of evidence which all show that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Your demand for nonsensical evidence which may not exist does nothing to disprove all the other solid evidence which does exist. Such is the arrogance of faith.
And so, back to the original question: why should we be able to find 4,000-year-old fossilized trees at all? What has led you to this conclusion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2004 : 14:53:15 [Permalink]
|
I think that I shall never see,
A poem as fugly as a tree.....
Sorry 'bout that, Joyce. Feel free to butcher some of mine.
Verlch, where do you get this 'billions of years' crap? The oldest, known fossils are not trees, but stromatolites dated at some 3.5 billion years, give or take (I'm working from memory here -- correct me it I'm senile). Stromatolites are a colonial bacteria and are found mainly in Australia, if memory serves. Trees were some billions of years away from being invented at that time. So was pretty much anything else. The earth is only some 4.5 billion years old. Current thought has it that the universe itself has only been around for about 13.5 billion, but again, we drift into cosmology and need a cosmologicus to explain it all. Where is Phil Platt when you need him?
Check the 'Getting Closer' thread for an interesting artical on recently discovered, extremophile virus'. It will give a little insite on what ancient creatures might have been like.
As Dave mentioned, fossils of more complex organisme, trees and the like, don't appear in the record until some 4 to 5 hundred million years ago. Just last week, in cosmic terms. And in cosmic terms, our own, bad selves have only been around since late this morning, and it is now not quite noon. Bad anologies perhaps, but there you have it.
So let's get off this billions nonsense and try to keep it within the realm of reality, although I'd like to know where you got your impressions. Methinks that you have been bamboozeled by the defecating of the bull.
And as has been stated ad nauseum, the age of the fossil at the time of the organism's death has little, if any, meaning (but not always. If asked, I'll get into it a little deeper). It is the age of the strata in which the fossil is found that's important. If you think otherwise, please elaborate with cites to documentation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2004 : 21:00:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Well with all of the millions of trees petrifed and billions of years that have passed, in your 'scientific' minds. There should be a least one really, really old fossilized tree, buried deep in the earth. Thus proving your billion year ideals! Without it you are just another 'missing link.'
Hi verlch. I'm glad to see that you're here to stick with your topic. However, I shold inform you that your logic just doesn't work. I'll let your initial first sentence slide, even if it makes no sense. That's because your ultimate claim is clear: why don't we have really old fossilized trees?
People have answered your claim, but I wanted to add my two cents: the age of a tree when it becomes fossilized is unimpotant for determining the age of the earth (unless one were to argue for impossibly low ages, e.g. 1,000 years, etc.). But, as near as I can tell, noting that a tree was 2,000 years old when it was fossilized only serves to tell us that a certain tree was 2,000 years old when it was fossilized. This says nothing about the age of the earth, or any other such thing.
Indeed, even arguing about trees is silly since people (including me) have shown that it's impossible that a group of people have actually counted your 'millions' of petrified trees. And you have yet to address this. Before you go off about anything else, you should reference your "millions of trees" bit so we can see for ourselves your claims.
You game, or not?  |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/16/2004 21:02:51 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
