That’s YOUR opinion said according to YOUR liking. No thanks.
You didn’t answer my question. Are there trees with a million rings?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
That’s YOUR opinion said according to YOUR liking. No thanks.
You didn’t answer my question. Are there trees with a million rings?
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. I just gave an example of one flaw in dating.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No FL. Those were not my opinions I gave.
Oh? Who’s were they then?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What the frack!? You appear to have conflated carbon dating with radiometric dating in general.
You think ducking and weaving shows integrity? Curious ...
firedragon
Veteran Member
No problem.
Try and read up on the Arkansas creation-evolution trial. I believe many have written books on it. I personally like Doc Normal Geislers book. Not particular because it is absolutely independent, but because it is detailed and analysed very well. To get a flip side version of radiometric dating, you should read something like Evolutionary Analysis. Academic, published by Pearson.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Carbon dating isn't used for millions of years (there are other methods for that). We know that atmospheric carbon was different in the past, and we know by how much. As you still seem to be ignoring the article I referenced, here's a pretty picture for you (source):
And yet you don't address relevant issues ─ like the five examples I've set out for you previously ─ twice.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Irrelevant.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I noticed the same thing, and had precisely the same thought. Of course the taxonomy of humans is that they are part of a family of great apes, with gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, and orangutans. Anyone defying this might explain why humans share a far higher percentage of genes with these species than with any other? For example there is less difference between the genome of a human and a gorilla, than there is between a zebra and a horse, as we are more closely "related" in evolutionary terms to other apes than horse are to zebras.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No, the rings inside trees generally donate a years growth, and the longest living trees are the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus Longaeva), deemed the oldest tree in existence, they can reach an age of over 5,000 years old.
Why would you think a tree can survive a million years anyway, that's almost as idiotic as someone asserting they're not an ape.
No, it was my direct answer to your question, so it wasn't irrelevant. Really the rest of our conversation is about your avoiding addressing those points.
But plainly you don't want to, and don't want to be persuaded to, so once again,
happy trails!
But not near as idiotic as your interpretation of my comments.
You argue like a 15-year-old.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt ask a question from you. I just asked you to substantiate your claim. Even your claim was irrelevant. Your substantiation to your irrelevant claim was also irrelevant.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I'm guessing the irony of that petulant and irrelevant ad hominem is wasted on you? Then again since you are denying known scientific facts in your profile for all to see, that doesn't come as much of a shock.
Taxonomy of humans.
"The current, 21st-century meaning of "hominid" includes all the great apes including humans."
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study."
"Humans did not evolve from chimps, as is a frequent misconception. Chimpanzees and humans share a recent common ancestor, and as some of this ancestral population evolved along one line to become modern chimpanzees, others of this ancestor evolved along a line of various species of early human, eventually resulting in Homo sapiens (you and me!). Chimpanzees are genetically closest to humans, and in fact, chimpanzees share about 98.6% of our DNA.
Your comments are irrelevant.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Yet you keep ignoring them, and then responding. You're a master of irony it seems. Though I can see how preserving archaic unevidenced superstitious creation myths, would make scientific facts that contradict them irrelevant, so kudos on at least understanding that much.
First of all, viruses are not actually living organisms*. Secondly, that is like saying, "my brother eats mangoes, I don't, we are now separate species". It is ridiculous and stupid.
*"...they lack the key characteristics, such as cell structure, that are generally considered necessary criteria for defining life."
Virus - Wikipedia
If you could breed mouse to a mini whale, that would be good evidence for evolution theory.