7000+ year Old Tree Stumps

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
What Truck? said:
1) The human body
2) The earth
a.) Moon and its affect on tides
b.) Distance from the sun
c.) Tilt of the earth
3) The hydrological cycle
4) Weather
5) Gravity
The counter-argument... these things are not here for us, but we're here because of them. Every being is a sum of the things around it, not the other way around. A pity that you somehow failed to mention it, would have given your presentation of things a little more credibility.

Still, there's plausibility in both ways of looking at it. And that's where science differs. Even though there might something known as the "leading theory" which is considered to be most close to the truth, each and every one of them gets some credit... after its inconsistencies has been tested, of course.

Religion, however, credits just one of them and ignores its inconsistencies 'til there's an explanation that supports the original theory.
 

What Truck?

New member
In response to Nezobiwan...

"So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?"

They were created along with all the other animals and man during the six days of creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1. Dinosaurs co-existed with man until Noah's flood, when representatives of the dinosaur kind were taken aboard the ark. At this point, all other species of dinosaurs became extinct (except those who were water-based, of course). After the flood, dinosaurs continued to exist for some time before climate changes brought about as an after-effect of the Great Flood caused their extinction.

"Oh that's right, Barney and Fred domesticated them..."

That was a great show, wasn't it? ;)

"Who decided that the Bible was wrong about animal sacrifice and slavery and the objectification of women? Oh that's right, people who actually change their thinking when the old way of thinking no longer makes sense logically."

This statement speaks to a lack of proper schooling in basic theology and hermeneutics.

Regarding hermeneutics.

There is a very basic fact you should know before attempting to slander the Bible - description does not equal prescription. Just because something is described in the Bible (animal sacrifice, slavery) does not mean it is condoned by Christianity. Instead, this simply speaks to Biblical truthfulness of how life was at the time the scriptures were written.

Regarding animal sacrifice.

The Bible makes it clear in Genesis that man is to have dominion over the animals. Additionally, both the Old and New Testament emphasize the importance of stewardship. Killing animals is not wrong in any way, unless the killing is done for no reason or is wasteful. Animal sacrifice served a very specific purpose - namely, reminding the Israelites of their sin and illustrating the principle that wrong deeds must be paid for in blood. The Old Testament sacrifices are a fore view of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross - the Lamb of God who was slain for the sins of the world. He died once and for all to pay the penalty of man's sins, and that is why animal sacrifice is no longer required or practiced. The Levitical priests who offered these sacrifices were sinners, just like you and I, and as a result their atonement for the people was imperfect. Not so in Christ.

And lest you still comment that the killing of animals is cruel, remember it was man who rebelled against God and began the cycle of violence and death on earth through the curse of sin.

Regarding slavery.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any affirmation of slavery as a trade. Now, some of Paul's letters in the New Testament do deal with slavery, but never in a way which says "slavery is okay, let's all own slaves." Instead, the Bible recognizes the existence of slavery, and then speaks to individuals on how to live in spite of the existence of that institution.

Theologically, the Holy Scriptures have a great deal to say about slavery. In Romans we find that we were once slaves to sin, and that the wages of that lifestyle is death. However, the gift of God (namely, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, his only begotten and perfect son, for the sins of the world) restores mankind's relationship with God if they will only accept the atoning blood of Christ's cross. When an individual makes this decision, he is born again, and is freed from his slavery to sin. This does not mean that individual will never sin again, but rather than he is now the slave of a new master - righteousness. So in that sense, the Bible does advocate slavery!

You may find it shocking that I just openly admitted to that, but it is true. You speak of Christianity as an institution which stifles free thought and encourages narrow-minded thinking, but nothing could be further from the truth. A relationship with the Creator of the universe is the most fulfilling and liberating experience any man could ever hope for!

Nor does Christianity encourage blind faith. In 2 Peter 3:15 Christians are told to always be prepared to give an account for the hope that is within you, doing this with gentleness and respect." That is exactly what I am doing here. Having one of life's fundamental questions answered (where did we come from) frees the mind to seek answers to all of life's great mysteries through the framework of truth.

This is where all true scientific enquiries begin: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." Genesis 1:1

Regarding the Objectification of Women.

I don't know who taught you that the Bible objectifies women, but they have done the Word of God a gross disservice. Indeed, the entire meta-narrative of the Scriptures, that of God redeeming the human race, is structured around the concept of marriage.

The church is referred to as the Bride of Christ, and the Lord's second coming culminates in a great wedding feast where He is consummated with his bride.

The book of Hosea provides a wonderful metaphor for how God views humanity - we are the unrepentant, unregenerate whore Gomer who continue to sell ourselves out to false gods of money, power, and sensual pleasure - even, as this discussion makes apparent, to the infallibility of human reason. Yet, in spite of this Hosea constantly pursues Gomer (his wife), even going to far as to buy her back off the auctioning block when she has resorted to selling herself to men publicly.

This kind of absolute, unconditional love is what the Bible teaches about the relationship between a man and a woman. Indeed, part of the purpose of the institution of marriage is to help Christians along in the process of sanctification (becoming more like Christ), because it gives us a tangible representation of how Christ loves his people. "Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church." No objectification there.

Additionally, the psalms and proverbs speak to both the dangers of the whorish women and the joys of a prudent wife. As Proverbs 31 says, "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." No objectification there.

"There might be a god or gods, but with the plethora of diverse religions in this world, to choose one by default of geographic location and anglo-saxon ancestry would be pretty close minded of me."

That would indeed be closed minded - it would appear, then, that you have a lot of work to do in researching these other religions to find out which one is true. And no, all religions are not equal - that nonsense has been propounded from time immemorial and has no grounds in reality.

Any decent worldview survey book should be able to clear up that misconception. I recommend "Prevailing Worldviews" by Dr. Glenn Martin.

"Considering Jesus, if he lived, lived many thousands of years ago, when people are even dumber than they are now (thanks David Cross for that great line)"

For all your concern about being open-minded, you sound pretty condemning of past peoples. I recommend taking a good humanities class to get an appreciation of just how 'stupid' these ancient peoples really were.

Western Civilization did not appear from nowhere - it developed for the hard-fought-for ideas of generations and generations of intellectuals. This evolution of our culture can be traced from the ancient Greeks to the Romans, up through the Medieval Ages, through the Renaissance and Reformation and into modern times. How you can suggest that people were "even dumber than they are now" is beyond me. Without the tireless innovations of these past peoples, you wouldn't be standing here, slandering them. Ironic, really.

"History is a myth that men agree to believe." --attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

Now how do we know he ever said that? ;)

Although all the specifics of history cannot be preserved, we can know generally what happened in the past and how. Historical enquiry, as I hinted at in another post, is different from empirical enquiry and there are different standards of evidence. A historical approach works in terms of framework - the theory that explains the most about a given set of data, rather than in observable fact. This does not make history any less valid.

And just a side note regarding the historicity of the Bible - it is without dispute the most accurate of all ancient documents. The sheer number of manuscripts we have to work with (something like 25,000 for the Old Testament) and several thousand for the new, ensure that any discrepancies in copying would be easily identified. And while there are minor textual issues, none of them are contained in passages with any real theological significance. Most errors come down to misspelled names, addition or subtraction of numbers in lists, or substituted words like and or a.

Additionally time time gap between when the events recorded in the Gospels took place and when they were recorded is less than 100 years, which was well within the limits for the eye-witnesses to record their stories or have it written by someone else. Luke was actually a doctor and a well-versed scribe. If he had been lying in his account, wouldn't it have made sense for the ruling religious leaders and the Roman government to show these to be unfounded claims?

I find it grossly hypocritical that scholars readily accept the works of Shakespeare and Caesar when the manuscript reliability is far less than those of the Gospels.
 

What Truck?

New member
In response to nezobiwan (cont.)

"Last time I checked, science never "proved" anything. All it does is supply theories and challenges others to find fault with those theories using observable proof."

That's just the point I was trying to make - there may be evidence, but at the end of the day, one must take what he or she believes on faith. Your choices are theism or atheism. Choose wisely. :dead:

"Religion says, 'This is the way it is and damn it all if we're ever going to change our minds. Anything that shows proof of our being wrong is just a test of your faith.'"

While "religion" - in the worse sense of that word, may indeed make such a claim (sans profanity), Christianity says no such thing. Rather, the Bible is the revealed Word of Almighty God, and by this very definition it is truth. Christianity is the pursuit of applying the wisdom imparted to humanity through God's word to daily living, in an attempt to become more like the One who made us, and to demonstrate His love and the joy of His salvation to those around us!!! :D

Wow, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Getting pretty involved! I wish there were more hours of the day to talk about these issues. After all, they are vitally important to our eternal destiny. Archaeology may not be the search for truth - but this certainly is!

Also, let me just clarify one thing - I'm not doing this for the sake of argument. I genuinely care for all of your well-being, and am doing this out of gentleness and respect.

I am not here to call names or say You are a liar! simply to inflame. I am just defending God's truth in the hope that it will in some small way benefit those who are participating.

God bless! :)

Oh, and in response to Finn:

"The counter-argument... these things are not here for us, but we're here because of them. Every being is a sum of the things around it, not the other way around. A pity that you somehow failed to mention it, would have given your presentation of things a little more credibility."

The reason I didn't mention the counter argument is because it is ridiculous and can hardly be considered an argument at all.

Even if you were to grant that all the conditions of our planet and solar system just happened to be what was necessary for life (which is a mathematical impossibility), this still does not explain the number one evidence I supplied, which is of course, humans. To believe that the human body evolved from anything, let alone from some sort of microscopic protazoa, is utterly absurd.

I can't believe such foolishness has been allowed to remain in the public's attention for as long as it has! The structure and perfection demonstrated in the structure of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the human eye, and the complexities of the skeletal system, nervous system, respiratory system, etc. could not have evolved.

And ClintonHammond:

You're welcome to go there along with the other pigeons. Because "I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth", is still the only thing of any value you've posted here. Everything you've posted since only serves to support that one statement.

I don't know what I've said to offend you - I've done nothing but present simple truths which are evident by what has been created. There's no need to get upset - my conviction requires that I share the good news with others, after all!

Once again, I see you've totally ignored the context of my statement about not being qualified to discuss the topic. As you admitted when you posted, back on topic, we were in the midst of a digression which you initiated. I merely said that there are only two choices - theism or atheism and which one you choose is a matter of faith.

This is a completely logical and true statment, so any decision to pursue this topic further (while not unwelcome) was your decision.

Unfortunately, most of your posts have been comprised of unfounded insults against my education and character or taking phrases out of context in an attempt to make me look foolish, rather than in any honest attempt to deal with the content of my posts.

While regretful, I can't say I didn't see this coming, which was why I was reluctant to begin this discussion in the first place. However, if you ever do look into those books I recommended, I think you would enjoy them immensely.

Perhaps we will continue this at another time and in another thread!
 
Last edited:
Can we PLEASE have this blatherskite removed from this thread so that the OT can continue.....

This has to be some sort of record.... from "Join" to "Ignore List" in 8 posts
 

What Truck?

New member
More insults?

You really ought to be careful there, ClintonHammond, you're on your way to getting moderated. ;)

This entire discussion arose naturally from the subject material you provided - so in that sense it is entirely on-topic.

Regarding 7,000 year old trees, I've said just about all I had to say in my original post. However, if you care to avoid such 'blatherskites' as myself in the future, you would do well to refrain from making unfounded and inflamatory remarks in your initial post, about which you are not knowledgeable. :whip:

Have a blessed day.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
What Truck? said:
The reason I didn't mention the counter argument is because it is ridiculous and can hardly be considered an argument at all.

Even if you were to grant that all the conditions of our planet and solar system just happened to be what was necessary for life (which is a mathematical impossibility), this still does not explain the number one evidence I supplied, which is of course, humans. To believe that the human body evolved from anything, let alone from some sort of microscopic protazoa, is utterly absurd.
To quote myself:
Finn said:
Religion, however, credits just one of them and ignores its inconsistencies 'til there's an explanation that supports the original theory.
Making a point has never been this easy.

Oh, and, What Truck?... you mentioned that Clinton's on his way to getting moderated. You're right. He is. But... you two are the two ends of a scale. And the guy who's about to do the moderating prefers sticking to the middle.
 
Last edited:

What Truck?

New member
I understand

Point taken. I suppose I did set myself up for that one.

I could also point out that most atheist do exactly the same thing, in opposite measure - but that wouldn't get us anywhere. ;)
 
071030-water-stumps-02.jpg

A great pic of wood that is several thousand years old...
 

What Truck?

New member
Pleasure to meet you!

No, I don't believe we have.

This thread was actually my first post - and what a post it was...

:gun: :whip: :gun:

Feel free to PM me - I think I've outstayed my welcome with the 7000 year old trees. ;)
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
*Wanders into thread*
Wow. This perhaps one of the most compelling and well written arguements on this topic that I've seen in years.
*Hopes that What Truck? returns*
 

IndyJr.

New member
Well 6,000 years... or 7 or 8,000 (which is what Young Earth people believe)... is very young compared to 25,000,000 or whatever...
 

Johan

Active member
I don't necessarily stand with the young earth side of things...though I believe in intelligent design this tree stump proves absolutely nothing. I mean do you think God created all the trees from seeds? I think if he is able to create the universe he is able to create trees that have some rings in it...he has the ability to put a tree somewhere that appears to be thousands of years old. He didn't create earth and just say "ok, your on your own...grow and do whatever you do"
My only point is...this proves nothing.
 

ReggieSnake

New member
I believe in intelligent design, and one point that I think I could add is that the 6 days of creation didn't neccessarily have to mean 6 actual days(It could have been ages, for example)...so while I for one would side with the younger earth theorists, I also think one can be consistant with the Bible and theorize that the earth is a little older.
Johan said:
My only point is...this proves nothing.
Bingo.
 
Top