7000+ year Old Tree Stumps

indy34

New member
metalinvader said:
"Global Warming Archaeology!"

I really don't need to see Al Gore in a fedora.
Hopefully global warming will finish us of before we have to see that:eek:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
metalinvader said:
Yeah but does a Noble Peace Prize make good adventure head wear???
It's roughly 1.5 mil dollars. I guess you can get the best there is with that.
 

What Truck?

New member
Very Interesting!

First post!!! :hat:

Good read there.

I think it would be amazing to have the chance to witness the uncovering of one of those stumps. To see it and to touch it, man...Just thinking of all the great achievements and failures that have occured in human history since that tree was encased in ice really causes one to stop and think.

Great men have come and gone - their bodies have returned to the dust from which they came; the world and its values have been constantly changing; civilizations have risen and fallen; great wars have been fought; technology has advanced exponentially - and through it all, a single tree has endured.

Trees (especially redwoods!) make me realize just how short man's life really is. We're here for a day, and tomorrow we're gone. Really makes you question man's significance in this world, doesn't it?

But I digress. Sorry about that - I just find this sort of thing fascinating. Once again, thanks for the post!

Oh, and to be fair, the article hardly provides evidence against a young earth model. Firstly, the date of 7,000 years fits well within the bounds of the young earth model, which - as far as I know - can range anywhere from 4000 years to around 10,000 years among the more conservative schools. However, it should also be noted that radiometric dating is not very accurate to begin with as it makes several assumptions about the nature of the samples it attempts to date as well as the world around them:

First, a little background...

Radiometric dating functions by measuring the relationship between parent and daughter elements - in the case of radiocarbon dating, this would be Carbon and Nitrogen.

And now, on to the good stuff...

1) Radiometric dating assumes the object in question is part of a closed system (i.e. there is no way for more of a parent element to be introduced)
2) Radiometric dating assumes there is no trace of daughter element present at formation
3) Radiometric dating assumes that the decay rate for the element in question (in this case, carbon) has always been the same

Following this last point, I find very interesting the fact that traces of carbon 14 have been found in coal specimens supposedly dated to 300,000,000 years. The problem with this is that the half-life for Carbon14 is around 5700 years, which means that after 300 million years, there shouldn't be enough of the element remainining to be measured - yet this is indeed the case.

I see this as a suggestion that the decay rate may very well be increasing. This would fit nicely with the concept of entropy as well.

...Now that was a mouthful! (I'm sure you can tell where I stand on this issue) :whip:

It's great to be a part of the forum - I'm looking forward to many great discussions in the future!
 

What Truck?

New member
Source...

Just google, "source of carbon14 in coal" for a wide variety of sites discussing this subject.

Additionally, there is some good information on this topic on Wikipedia.

Granted, this is a very controversial subject, and I don't deny that multiple conclusions have been reached with the same information, but it is interesting nontheless.

Hope that clarified! (y)
 
"Just google, "source of carbon14 in coal"
No... if you have a specific example you'd like to discuss, please link the rest of us to it. Otherwise the discussion is so fraught with the potential for misunderstanding as to be pointless.

"multiple conclusions have been reached with the same information"
Not all conclusions have the same validity....
 

What Truck?

New member
Specific Link

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14f.htm

There you go. :D

I agree with you that not all conclusions are equally valid - the only reason I didn't post a specific link in the previous post was because I did not want to imply that I knew which one was correct...

...because the fact is, I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth as I am neither a scientist nor am I studying to become one - I simply found this information interesting.

Ultimately, one's beliefs about the world are shaped by a fundamental choice - whether one believes in God or whether one does not believe in God. Theism or atheism are the only options for explaining how the world originated, and both are equally matters of faith.

I ascribe to theism - specifically Christianity, and for me to spend my life researching all the infinite possible details which could either support or deny this belief would be utterly wasteful. The existence of God and the truth of his revealed word in the Bible (including the idea of a young earth) is an axiom, and I leave the discerning of details to men far more qualified than I.

While I'm not opposed to continuing this discussion, I have a feeling it would just lead to me attempting to prove things in which I do not have proper schooling, and in doing so possibly providing misinformation to those involved in the discussion.

I have the intellectual honesty to realize this would be a foolish exercise.
 
The term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.

creation-science-prophecy.com isn't worth the electrons it takes to display on my monitor....

Atheism has nothing to do with 'faith'.

"I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth"
That much is apparent... but at least you're man enough to admit it.
 

What Truck?

New member
"The term 'Creation Science' is an oxymoron."

Well, considering God created the universe and everything in it - I'm going to have to disagree with you there. ;)

"Atheism has nothing to do with faith."

Of course it does. Atheism claims to have insight about the creation of the world - an event which no one witnessed and which is not repeatable. Any inquiry into this must of necessity be historical rather than empirical, and any answers must be reached by deduction rather than absolute knowledge.

An atheist says that God does not exist, in spite of the overwhelming design and perfection of the created world...

A theist says that God exists because of the same design and perfection...

Both are matters of faith, and they speak to an underlying worldview and expectations about reality. Atheism actually requires far more faith than theism, but that's another discussion.

I am not denying there are problems with the young earth model, but it would be equally foolish to claim that the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth are factual or even logical. Such statements are telling signs of an obsession with the notion that science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe.

Science has its uses, but they are limited. Theology and metaphysics are equally valid ways of attempting to explain the world we live in, and have been considered vital parts of the human experience for thousands of years. The recent emphasis on the infallibility of science is not justified.

Really, the nicest thing I can say about evolution is that is is a fairy tale for grownups who are afraid to take responsibility for their actions in the face of an almighty God.

That should provide some meat for discussion! :whip:
 
Last edited:
"considering God created the universe and everything in it "
According to what evidence? There isn't any, that's what evidence.

"Atheism claims to have insight about the creation of the world - an event which no one witnessed and which is not repeatable."
Creation of the world? For one, it was never 'created'... It evolved, just like all the other planets we've observed (Directly or indirectly) probably from the same cloud of space dust that coalesced (probably because of gravity) to form our sun (And the billions of other suns in our galaxy alone) By observing the process elsewhere, and by checking and rechecking the evidence under our very feet, we arrive at the current model, the current cosmological 'educated guess' as to how our planet formed.

"An atheist says that God does not exist, in spite of the overwhelming design and perfection"
Again, there's no 'design' or 'perfection'.

"factual or even logical"
Evolution IS fact.... full stop. We observe it happening all the time. Anyone who has ever tried to teach you otherwise has insulted (And some would even say, abused) you. Of course they've deluded you.... If they didn't, they wouldn't have their JOBS any more. Like Tobacco Companies, they need new victims to replace the ones they're losing every day.

"science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe"
Not science, but the scientific METHOD....

"the infallibility of science"
Science never claimed to be infallible in the least.... The difference is, unlike 'theology' science LEARNS from it's mistakes... Science is CONSTANTLY modifying and updating its view of the universe as more information rolls in. Theology has its head in the same sand its head was in 2+thousand years ago....


"an almighty God"
Just what this forum needed... another pigeon. There is no god.... never has been... never will be. That you feel the need to call Evolution a "Fairy Tale" only reaffirms what you said above... "I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth", is the only thing you've said so far that has any validity.

You could change that by getting yourself a decent education..... But you'd have to leave the flock and stop pecking at the sidewalk.
 

nezobiwan

New member
What Truck? said:
I am not denying there are problems with the young earth model, but it would be equally foolish to claim that the theory of evolution and the idea of an old earth are factual or even logical. Such statements are telling signs of an obsession with the notion that science is the end-all be-all of explaining the universe.


So what happened with the dinosaurs in Genesis?

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

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.

For the record. I'm agnostic. 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.

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) and more prone to rumor and hearsay (that gigantic game of "telephone" before telephones were even conceived of) and the majority of those people were not educated (and galactically uneducated by today's standards), then that makes me even less inclined to believe the most fantastic of it all ever happened.

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

If we can't explain the Kennedy assassination without debate arising--when we can actually talk to people who were there and we have actual VIDEO evidence of what happened--what makes anyone think that events that happened before recorded history could possibly be absolute truth? Did you know there are people out there who think Elvis is still alive? (to quote MIB: "Elvis is not dead, he just went home.")

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 the difference between religion and science. Science says "I could be wrong, so test me and change your mind based on what you can find. IF what you find can be duplicated." 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."

Religion=totalitarian
Science=egalitarian

I find it extraordinarily liberating to be free of institutions that tell me I can't question things and figure them out for myself.
 

What Truck?

New member
Well, this is certainly getting interesting!

"probably from the same cloud of space dust that coalesced (probably because of gravity) to form our sun (And the billions of other suns in our galaxy alone)"

All you've done is move the problem back a step. You have yet to explain where the cloud of space dust, as you put it, came from. The idea of spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago - you simply cannot get something from nothing. Until you resolve the problem of where all the materials came from, you have no right to discuss how they 'evolved.'

As to your remark about gravity - if there ever was such a thing as the big bang, all the elements of the universe would have been expanding outward from its initial point. What makes you think that all that material could defy inertia and coalesce together?

Matter should be equally distributed throughout the universe if your scenario were true, yet it is not. Further, if our entire solar system came from the same spinning gas cloud which somehow formed around our star, why is there retrograde motion in the some of the planets and moons?

"Again, there's no 'design' or 'perfection'"

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

Really, the list goes on and on. We often take for granted this design because it seems so natural. Even evolutionists are forced to speak of the 'illusion of design". For you to insist that even the appearance of design is non-existent is little more than denial.

Evolution IS fact.... full stop. We observe it happening all the time.

Even if the idea of evolution had been present from day one of recorded history and man had been carefully observing nature to discern this process, we would still not have been studying evolution for a fraction of the time which this process supposedly takes. Evolution has never been observed - there are no examples of evolution in the modern world or in the history of the earth.

The only thing which has been witnessed is adaptation (whether in life or through the fossil record) - that is, variation within a species. This is totally consistent with the biblical conception of all animals and mankind as having been created as separate and distinct kinds.

Adaptation, or micro-evolution, as it is sometimes called, does not equal macro-evolution. A bird with a slightly modified beak, or a fruit-fly with an extra set of wings has nothing to do with a monkey becoming a man.

"Not science, but the scientific METHOD...."

Might I recommend The Limitations of Scientific Truth by Nigel Brush. I believe you would find this book informative.

"Science never claimed to be infallible in the least.... The difference is, unlike 'theology' science LEARNS from it's mistakes"

You're correct, science didn't claim to be infallible - you claimed it to be infallible by your loyalty to a discipline, which by your own admission is constantly growing. The very things you are now defending may not be scientifically viable 50 or 100 years from now.

Regarding theology - if it's not broken, then there's no need to fix it. Constant change isn't necessarily a good thing.

"'I am not qualified to discuss the subject in any depth', is the only thing you've said so far that has any validity."

As you and I both know, that commet was made concerning the specific topic of carbon14 dating, and I stand by it. However, you chose to move this discussion into the much broader realm of theism vs. atheism, and on this subject I am more than prepared to hold my own.

"You could change that by getting yourself a decent education..... But you'd have to leave the flock and stop pecking at the sidewalk."

Ad hominem arguments are the oldest trick in the book, and I won't be taking the bait. Tempting though...;)

All statements made in this discussion are my own opinions which I have formed, and continue to form through careful study, analysis and research. There's no need to pretend that someone is feeding me this information - rather, it is my firm belief, and one which is grounded in truth.
 
"which is grounded in truth"
Archaeology is the search for FACT... not truth... If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

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.

Back On Topic.
7+ thousand year old tree stumps can teach us an awful lot about our environment, how it changes and perhaps, how we can keep ourselves from contributing to our own destruction.
 
Top