Creationist Chronology

[juliod]

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

[seventil]

And from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... e_ring.asp

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

*** AND***

Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

^^^ This explanation fits with YEC's claim of tropical-wet areas produces multiple rings per year.

Can it be agreed upon that if a Biblical Flood did exist, the post Flood conditions would fit this category?

[ENIGMA]

Can it be agreed upon that if a Biblical Flood did exist, the post Flood conditions would fit this category?

If a Biblical Flood did exist then the vast majority of plantlife today would have readily died out. Try severely overwatering your houseplant and this will become obvious.

[seventil]

Can it be agreed upon that if a Biblical Flood did exist, the post Flood conditions would fit this category?

If a Biblical Flood did exist then the vast majority of plantlife today would have readily died out. Try severely overwatering your houseplant and this will become obvious.

Can you reword that, or state that another way? I've reread this statement five times, and I'm sorry, but it makes no sense.

How does an ancient Flood have anything to do with plantlife today, and it dying out? And why would me watering my houseplant have anything to do with anything, since us Creationist claim that all plantlife died during the Flood?

[juliod]

Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

Well, has this been demonstrated? All we have from the creationists is rationalizations to explain away the data that falsifies their story.

The dendrochronology data is there, ready to be reinterpreted. Why don't they get on with it?

There should be three clearly identifiable phases in history to be revealed in the tree rings:

1) From the Creation to the Flood.

2) The Flood and the immediate post-flood climate.

3) Transition to the current climate.


It should be easy to show that this creationist interpretation (which I am sure doesn't actually exist) better fits the data than the ordinary interpretation that these trees represent dates of 6800 BC and earlier.

DanZ

[Lotan]

Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

And where would the 11,700 yr old 'King Clone' creosote bush fit into this chronology?

[youngborean]

How was the Creosote bush dated? Because simple dendrochronology could not account for desert plants due to the extremeties of moisture.

[Jose]

And from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... e_ring.asp

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. ...

*** AND***

Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

...

Can it be agreed upon that if a Biblical Flood did exist, the post Flood conditions would fit this category?

Except that dendrochronology is not based on a single species, so mis-counting is recognized and corrected. Furthermore, in Bristlecones, it is more common for them not to produce identifiable rings in one or more years, rather than for them to produce extras. Given the extreme, harsh conditions in which they live (high altitude, specific soil type) it seems rather unlikely that they would behave like tropical trees. For them, seasons are quite pronounced.

I don't think we can say with any accuracy what the post-Flood conditions were, except that they started out very muddy, and the laws of physics were what they are now. We presume that all of the plant life was drowned during the flood, just as current over-watered plants do (note your question, " And why would me watering my houseplant have anything to do with anything, since us Creationist claim that all plantlife died during the Flood?"). It must have been very difficult for the (dead?) plants to re-establish themselves. I guess it must have been by floating seeds landing in various locations and germinating...though I'm puzzled that all of the corn, potato, pepper, and tomato seeds landed in the tropical Americas, and all of the citrus seeds landed in Asia and the Mediterranean--unless we propose additional divine intervention to produce the distributions of species that we recognize as the "indigenous" plants in certain regions.

[ENIGMA]

Can it be agreed upon that if a Biblical Flood did exist, the post Flood conditions would fit this category?

If a Biblical Flood did exist then the vast majority of plantlife today would have readily died out. Try severely overwatering your houseplant and this will become obvious.

Can you reword that, or state that another way? I've reread this statement five times, and I'm sorry, but it makes no sense.

How does an ancient Flood have anything to do with plantlife today, and it dying out? And why would me watering my houseplant have anything to do with anything, since us Creationist claim that all plantlife died during the Flood?

Simply put, if the flood killed every plant that is not waterbourne (if not every plant completely, which makes the problem worse), and the plants today are relatively recently (Less than 50 tree generations) descended from the plants then, the vast majority of plants today should be waterbourne. However, most plants today are just like the houseplant. Too much water drowns the plant, killing it soon thereafter.

So I am quite curious how the Creationists would explain the existance of trees since they or any previous trees that they could be decended from would have been wiped out in the flood.

[YEC]

PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark. The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could have germinated and grown outside of the ark. It’s possible/probable that Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that fashion, yet some would. Floating vegetation rafts would have also provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters. As the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds buried deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a chance to germinate.
Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were buried or settled on the surface.
Ref, Noah’s Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe

[juliod]

PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD

Great!

But how do you apply that to the bristlecone pines which were supposedly rooted at creation? How did they avoid being killed and buried by the flood?

BTW, you still haven't said if you "feel comfortable" with a date of about 6800 BC for the creation.

DanZ