In the Creation Theory thread old ag said that there was good theories of creation available, and cited AiG and the ICR. So I looked on their web pages for such a theory.
I didn't find one, nor a general chronology, but I did find some relevant information. This article:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
...gives the dates published by Bishop Ussher. They are:
Creation: 4004 BC.
Flood: 2350 BC.
The article also states that other biblical "scholars" have given dates for the creation from 3760 BC to 5555 BC.
But there's a problem, the article says: dendrochronology. To quote: "Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier."
Nevertheless, the conclusion is given as "Even with only minor adjustments in the growth-ring-to-year correlation, most creation scientists would feel quite comfortable with a resulting date of creation in the 6000-7000 B.C. range."
This is, I have to point out, an absurdity. The earliest possible date for the creation (I'm quoting them, I make no judgement on their research) is 5555 BC. And we have tree rings that go back to at least 6800 BC.
This is a result! Creationism is completely falsified by this data. It's all over. Stick a fork in them. How can you "feel comfortable" with a date that is at least a full millenium earlier than your earliest possible date? It's absurd.
Now, don't mistake this data. There is little room for error. Dendrochronology is accurate to within less than a year. For cut wood you can often tell in which season it was felled.
Stop quibbling an agree that creationism is false!
DanZ
Creationist Chronology
Moderator: Moderators
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #3
Since trees grow by the season (in winter deciduous trees don't take in any sunlight and in all trees the sap freezes), and tree rings are a direct result of seasonal change, I can't for the life of me see how this claim is tenable anyway.
One can even tell by the tree rings how good a growing season they had. If the ring is narrow, that means the growing season was short, or there was little water. If the ring is wide, that means more water and more time were available for the tree's growth.
With this in mind, and knowing how a tree forms its rings, explain then how there can be two winters (and a double growth ring) in one solar year.
One can even tell by the tree rings how good a growing season they had. If the ring is narrow, that means the growing season was short, or there was little water. If the ring is wide, that means more water and more time were available for the tree's growth.
With this in mind, and knowing how a tree forms its rings, explain then how there can be two winters (and a double growth ring) in one solar year.
Post #5
Dendrochronology
Trees also add one ring for each rainy season within a year. If the climate of a particular region is wet year-round, as in the tropics, rings tend to be very thick and almost indistinguishable. If the climate of an area has two distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year.
ref http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wd/courses/37 ... 20den.html
Now quick....surf over to Talk Origins and find a rebuttle.
Trees also add one ring for each rainy season within a year. If the climate of a particular region is wet year-round, as in the tropics, rings tend to be very thick and almost indistinguishable. If the climate of an area has two distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year.
ref http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wd/courses/37 ... 20den.html
Now quick....surf over to Talk Origins and find a rebuttle.
Post #6
Uhhh...a lot of the trees we're talking about are from the US. There aren't a lot of tropical forests in Nevada where the Methusela Tree lives. Maybe the tropical-way-out works for some trees, but those trees weren't used for the measurements.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
No no no! Well, yes.Many of the years there was double tree rings.
The possability of double rings and other issues are already dealt with in that article. That's why the concluding sentance I quotes mentioned "minor adjustments"
The point is, YEC, do you "feel comfortable" with a date for creation that is a millenium earlier than the earliest possible biblical date?
DanZ
Post #9
The problem is even worse considering that the flood would likely have eradicated previously extant plant life.juliod wrote:No no no! Well, yes.Many of the years there was double tree rings.
The possability of double rings and other issues are already dealt with in that article. That's why the concluding sentance I quotes mentioned "minor adjustments"
The point is, YEC, do you "feel comfortable" with a date for creation that is a millenium earlier than the earliest possible biblical date?
DanZ
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #10
From http://www.trueorigins.org
Question 5: Why not venture a bit further than [“flood geology is silly”] and start naming the specific evidence with which you believe flood geology fails to agree?
Answer 5:
>> (i) We have tree ring records which reach back for more than 10,000 years which do not contain evidence of a catastrophe of flood magnitude... <<
The conclusions of dendochronology to which you refer don’t seem to be quite as conclusive and unambiguous as they might be presented. Some familiarity with the climate patterns likely to have occurred after a global flood helps one see that every ring need not represent a full year, but rather cycles of temperature and/or water conditions.
Question 5: Why not venture a bit further than [“flood geology is silly”] and start naming the specific evidence with which you believe flood geology fails to agree?
Answer 5:
>> (i) We have tree ring records which reach back for more than 10,000 years which do not contain evidence of a catastrophe of flood magnitude... <<
The conclusions of dendochronology to which you refer don’t seem to be quite as conclusive and unambiguous as they might be presented. Some familiarity with the climate patterns likely to have occurred after a global flood helps one see that every ring need not represent a full year, but rather cycles of temperature and/or water conditions.
