LOL, they say they only have a few thousand years of dendrochronology, bullshit. In new zealand they have a dendrochronology of the kauri (pornounced "cow-ree") tree that goes back nineteen thousand years! What do you young earthers think of that?!?
@morningstomper123 Wiki, Individuals in the same 10 cm diameter class may vary in age by 300 years, and the largest individual on any particular site is often not the oldest.[9][10] Trees can normally live longer than 600 years. Many individuals probably exceed 1000 years, but there is no conclusive evidence that trees can exceed 2000 years in age.[9]
@BereanBeacon1 Actually there is consensus. "methuselah", the worlds oldest living tree, is over 4500 years old, evidenced by the number of rings counted from core samples, and that's conclusive.. Also, the fact you are talking about living trees means you don't understand dendrochronology, which cross-references the rings from thousands of samples (living and dead) and correlates them into a chronology, proving that kauris have been living and dieing constantly for over 19 000 years!
Tāne Mahuta is a giant kauri tree (Agathis australis) in the Waipoua Forest of Northland Region, New Zealand. Its age is unknown but is estimated to be between 1,250 and 2,500 years old
How come wikipedia has such a vastly different age for the Kauri tree ???
@morningstomper123 Hummm... the tree registry of new zealend itself says the age of this tree is unknown. How do you come up with information anyway ???
h t t p (://)register(.)notabletrees(.)org.nz/tree/view/800
@biggbaddjohn If the exact age of something is unknown, that does not mean we cannot tell the minimum amount of time it has existed. In other words, there is a dendrochronology that dates back to 17, 000 BCE for the kauri tree. This would make the kauri species AT LEAST 19, 000 years old. What is its' exact age? The answer to that is unknown. Has the tree been around for at least 19, 000 yrs? The answer is yes. Watch "whispering giants pt 1" posted by "mtadaki" and tell me what you think.
@morningstomper123 You're wasting your time with these Creationist numbskulls. They've already reached the conclusion before considering the evidence. No matter which discipline you focus on to demonstrate a fact about the natural world, these delusional nutcases will come up with bogus arguments to create confusion. Dendrochronology has nothing to do with god, it's simply good science. However, these lunatics must cling to their supernatural fantasies.
@Tapiola2007 Whilst I agree that MOST discourse with creationists will get us nowhere, I reject the notion that I am wasting my time. When I was a christian as a child, nobody even disagreed with my world view. Then, as a teenager, I met someone in a chat room who told me that the bible was full of contradictions. It blew my mind, the idea that someone could think so radically differently to me. As thinking people, I think we can help the human intellect simply by making our thoughts known.
@morningstomper123 That's an interesting story and one that I should pause to take into account. Perhaps I've spent too much time arguing with the hardcore that I forget there are a lot of people who might actually appreciate new information. Thanks for sharing!
@gregrutz All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
For the same reason physicist don’t debate geoscientists and chemists don’t debate alchemists. The people who take the opposition are so grossly uneducated in the subject that you would first have to educate them before you debate them. With that we are also arguing against a magical wild card in that no matter what we give you as evidence you will always claim “:well god could have willed it into existence that way”.
@sweatytoothmadman [[ For the same reason physicist don’t debate geoscientists and chemists don’t debate alchemists]] I think that this is inaccurate because I just heard a debate between a triple doctorate who specialized in dentistry and other medical fields vs. a molecular biologist. A spectator inquired the very same thing and the specialist agreed that he (Horowitz) was qualified to examine the research and therefore was qualified to debate due to his expertise based on the research.
@BereanBeacon1 LOL, tell it to 'em straight brother! Bawk-bawk-bawk! You have got to admire how fanatical these zealots are in defending their evolutionary belief system! I see the same handful of fools chirping away on your vids day after day, and yet, not a one of them will at least attempt to win that money and prove you to be the "uneducated" ignoramus they claim you to be. Hey sweaty, greg & pseudo-science foundation: Personal attacks are NOT science! Address the video!
@sweatytoothmadman "You have about as much a chance at convincing a geoscientists that the earth goes around the sun then you do a creationists of evolution."
Your analogy is baffling in an awesome and profound sort of way. I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing a geoscientist that the earth revolves around the sun, but selling evolution to those that know the truth...eh, odds aren't so favorable, no?
O,&I'm chiming or chimming or chim-chim-cherie-ing in right now, Jack. Spot-on vid!
theres a 12,000 year old creosote bush but thats not a tree . The oldest bristelcone pine is 4700 years old. Noahs flood is given as 2200 BC roughly, so that tree is older than the flood. Maybe the flood date is wrong? Why are electricians and nuclear chemists talking about tree rings ? why not a few botanists , they deal with plants. Multiple growth tings are known , and readily evident visually, so not a real issue. Woodmoroppe also not a botanist.
Okay, this global flood theory is continuously losing its credibility. Some of the oldest ice cores, which date back thousands of years, show no signs of a global flood. Tree rings only represent a period of around 200 years in most cases and then PREDICTIONS must be made based on whats called a calibration interval. They are also ignoring the fact that ocean water contains oxygen 18 and 16 isotopes which can be found in tree material and ice cores. Why havent they found any evidence from that?
@gregrutz Would you be willing to debate the subject of geology and whether it supports the flood or not in skype? You've declined to do so once already, so I doubt you'll accept this time. If you accept, it will be recorded and put on youtube in it's entirety. Let me know if your interested.
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists...at their predisposition AGAINST true evidence and TOWARD HYPOTHETICAL "evidence" from modern dating methods which involve SO many invalid assumptions (e.g. closed system -- no factors possibly contaminating tested samples for long ages of time).
Jesus is Santa Claus for adults! (Naive adults, mind you!)
kw757 5 months ago
@kw757 Atheism is prozac for the soul....
biggbaddjohn 4 months ago
LOL, they say they only have a few thousand years of dendrochronology, bullshit. In new zealand they have a dendrochronology of the kauri (pornounced "cow-ree") tree that goes back nineteen thousand years! What do you young earthers think of that?!?
morningstomper123 11 months ago
@morningstomper123 Wiki, Individuals in the same 10 cm diameter class may vary in age by 300 years, and the largest individual on any particular site is often not the oldest.[9][10] Trees can normally live longer than 600 years. Many individuals probably exceed 1000 years, but there is no conclusive evidence that trees can exceed 2000 years in age.[9]
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Actually there is consensus. "methuselah", the worlds oldest living tree, is over 4500 years old, evidenced by the number of rings counted from core samples, and that's conclusive.. Also, the fact you are talking about living trees means you don't understand dendrochronology, which cross-references the rings from thousands of samples (living and dead) and correlates them into a chronology, proving that kauris have been living and dieing constantly for over 19 000 years!
morningstomper123 11 months ago
@morningstomper123 LOL morningstomper can't read...
Tāne Mahuta is a giant kauri tree (Agathis australis) in the Waipoua Forest of Northland Region, New Zealand. Its age is unknown but is estimated to be between 1,250 and 2,500 years old
How come wikipedia has such a vastly different age for the Kauri tree ???
biggbaddjohn 4 months ago
@biggbaddjohn Hey, did you watch the video? What did you think? Do you understand dendrochronology now?
morningstomper123 3 months ago
@morningstomper123 Hummm... the tree registry of new zealend itself says the age of this tree is unknown. How do you come up with information anyway ???
h t t p (://)register(.)notabletrees(.)org.nz/tree/view/800
biggbaddjohn 4 months ago
@biggbaddjohn If the exact age of something is unknown, that does not mean we cannot tell the minimum amount of time it has existed. In other words, there is a dendrochronology that dates back to 17, 000 BCE for the kauri tree. This would make the kauri species AT LEAST 19, 000 years old. What is its' exact age? The answer to that is unknown. Has the tree been around for at least 19, 000 yrs? The answer is yes. Watch "whispering giants pt 1" posted by "mtadaki" and tell me what you think.
morningstomper123 4 months ago
@morningstomper123 You're wasting your time with these Creationist numbskulls. They've already reached the conclusion before considering the evidence. No matter which discipline you focus on to demonstrate a fact about the natural world, these delusional nutcases will come up with bogus arguments to create confusion. Dendrochronology has nothing to do with god, it's simply good science. However, these lunatics must cling to their supernatural fantasies.
Tapiola2007 3 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Whilst I agree that MOST discourse with creationists will get us nowhere, I reject the notion that I am wasting my time. When I was a christian as a child, nobody even disagreed with my world view. Then, as a teenager, I met someone in a chat room who told me that the bible was full of contradictions. It blew my mind, the idea that someone could think so radically differently to me. As thinking people, I think we can help the human intellect simply by making our thoughts known.
morningstomper123 3 months ago
@morningstomper123 That's an interesting story and one that I should pause to take into account. Perhaps I've spent too much time arguing with the hardcore that I forget there are a lot of people who might actually appreciate new information. Thanks for sharing!
Tapiola2007 3 months ago
No, the oldest tree is 7,300 years old and tree rings overlaped go back 13,000 years. The problem is it proves there was no global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
For the same reason physicist don’t debate geoscientists and chemists don’t debate alchemists. The people who take the opposition are so grossly uneducated in the subject that you would first have to educate them before you debate them. With that we are also arguing against a magical wild card in that no matter what we give you as evidence you will always claim “:well god could have willed it into existence that way”.
sweatytoothmadman 1 year ago
@sweatytoothmadman [[ For the same reason physicist don’t debate geoscientists and chemists don’t debate alchemists]] I think that this is inaccurate because I just heard a debate between a triple doctorate who specialized in dentistry and other medical fields vs. a molecular biologist. A spectator inquired the very same thing and the specialist agreed that he (Horowitz) was qualified to examine the research and therefore was qualified to debate due to his expertise based on the research.
MayonR 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 LOL, tell it to 'em straight brother! Bawk-bawk-bawk! You have got to admire how fanatical these zealots are in defending their evolutionary belief system! I see the same handful of fools chirping away on your vids day after day, and yet, not a one of them will at least attempt to win that money and prove you to be the "uneducated" ignoramus they claim you to be. Hey sweaty, greg & pseudo-science foundation: Personal attacks are NOT science! Address the video!
salmagnum 1 year ago
You have about as much a chance at convincing a geoscientists that the earth goes around the sun then you do a creationists of evolution.
"handful of fools chirping away on your vids day after day"
And oddly enough they back up their claims without a single creationists chimming in to defend the video.
sweatytoothmadman 1 year ago
@sweatytoothmadman "You have about as much a chance at convincing a geoscientists that the earth goes around the sun then you do a creationists of evolution."
Your analogy is baffling in an awesome and profound sort of way. I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing a geoscientist that the earth revolves around the sun, but selling evolution to those that know the truth...eh, odds aren't so favorable, no?
O,&I'm chiming or chimming or chim-chim-cherie-ing in right now, Jack. Spot-on vid!
salmagnum 1 year ago
theres a 12,000 year old creosote bush but thats not a tree . The oldest bristelcone pine is 4700 years old. Noahs flood is given as 2200 BC roughly, so that tree is older than the flood. Maybe the flood date is wrong? Why are electricians and nuclear chemists talking about tree rings ? why not a few botanists , they deal with plants. Multiple growth tings are known , and readily evident visually, so not a real issue. Woodmoroppe also not a botanist.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Okay, this global flood theory is continuously losing its credibility. Some of the oldest ice cores, which date back thousands of years, show no signs of a global flood. Tree rings only represent a period of around 200 years in most cases and then PREDICTIONS must be made based on whats called a calibration interval. They are also ignoring the fact that ocean water contains oxygen 18 and 16 isotopes which can be found in tree material and ice cores. Why havent they found any evidence from that?
SexualThunder5150 3 years ago
The ice you are speaking of was formed as a result of the flood! It wasn't present before the flood.
micah1116 2 years ago
@micah1116 The last of many Ice Ages was 13,000 years ago, there is no evidence for a global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Would you be willing to debate the subject of geology and whether it supports the flood or not in skype? You've declined to do so once already, so I doubt you'll accept this time. If you accept, it will be recorded and put on youtube in it's entirety. Let me know if your interested.
micah1116 1 year ago
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists...at their predisposition AGAINST true evidence and TOWARD HYPOTHETICAL "evidence" from modern dating methods which involve SO many invalid assumptions (e.g. closed system -- no factors possibly contaminating tested samples for long ages of time).
cfmmrjeff 3 years ago
Science and historical evidence continue to support creation. Atheism has no answers, only the bible has those answers.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago
@warriorprince1010 Science has never supported creation, it proves the earth is old and there was never a global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
wrooong that tree is 4700 years old
oggjy 4 years ago