1. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140169
    11 Feb '12 17:381 edit
    We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.

    Some of the oldest Calendars are 5000 years old so once again

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Oldest


    Manny
  2. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140169
    11 Feb '12 17:47
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees




    Manny
  3. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140169
    11 Feb '12 17:551 edit
    Hebrew calendar year is 5769.
    Chinese calendar 4706.
    Hindu calendar 2031.
    Gregorian calendar 2009.
    Byzantine calendar 7518 (as of 2009 Gregorian)
    *Proto-Bulgarian calendar 7515.



    I copied and pasted this none of this is my own intellectual self LOL 🙂

    Manny
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Feb '12 18:10
    Originally posted by menace71
    We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.
    How do you know? If you trust science, then you will know that the earth is over 4 billion years old. If you don't trust science then you don't know how old the Sequoia is.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Feb '12 18:13
    Originally posted by menace71
    We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Oldest
    It says over 3500 on the Wikipedia page you reference. It does not say over 4000.

    There are however other old trees:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    11 Feb '12 19:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It says over 3500 on the Wikipedia page you reference. It does not say over 4000.

    There are however other old trees:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
    It wouldn't matter if living trees were found that were 30,000 years old, creationists would deny, deny, deny since all they can do is wallow in their own delusions. They would be happy if you could send them back in a time machine to year zero and watch the three wise men in person. Nobody back then would argue about such trivialities as evolution or the age of the Earth.
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    11 Feb '12 21:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It wouldn't matter if living trees were found that were 30,000 years old, creationists would deny, deny, deny since all they can do is wallow in their own delusions. They would be happy if you could send them back in a time machine to year zero and watch the three wise men in person. Nobody back then would argue about such trivialities as evolution or the age of the Earth.
    It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
    what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
    for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
    can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
    you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
    Kelly
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Feb '12 22:07
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
    what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
    for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
    can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
    you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
    Kelly
    Robbie says: "...do try to learn something, anything would be better than this ill informed and blatantly ignorant projection of ignorance, its not an attempt to condescend to you in any way, but your lack of understanding is really incredulous. To project it on to others, immoral. ..."

    Listen to Robbie.
  9. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    11 Feb '12 22:521 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
    what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
    for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
    can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
    you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
    Kelly
    It is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    11 Feb '12 23:011 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
    what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
    for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
    can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
    you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
    Kelly
    With that sort argument you might as well fight against the idea that 2+2=4.

    I mean, they sure look like 2's on the LHS, and a 4 on the RHS but what if our eyes deceive us and one of those 2's is actually a 5? 😲

    If the sciences are wrong about the conclusions they draw from the evidence here, then they might as well be wrong about the basic principles of gravity also. Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    12 Feb '12 01:25
    Originally posted by moon1969
    It is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
    Your of the opinion that the dates and gravity are on par with one another on
    what we know and can know? Seriously gravity is in the here and now, you can
    look at it real time, but the distant past, you have never been there, and the
    greater the distance in the past we go the less we know about it. For you that
    does not seem to be an issue, what you can measure today and view today is
    just as real and factual I guess than what you think occured billions of years
    ago, and you think I'm the one with issues?
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    12 Feb '12 01:26
    Originally posted by Agerg
    With that sort argument you might as well fight against the idea that 2+2=4.

    I mean, they sure look like 2's on the LHS, and a 4 on the RHS but what if our eyes deceive us and one of those 2's is actually a 5? 😲

    If the sciences are wrong about the conclusions they draw from the evidence here, then they might as well be wrong about the basic principles of gravity also. Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!
    This is so left wing of you, get in a discussion and let the insults fly.
    Kelly
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    12 Feb '12 01:342 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    This is so left wing of you, get in a discussion and let the insults fly.
    Kelly
    Kelly - what other argument should I bring here? your contention that numerous bodies of science just may be misunderstanding data which can reasonably point to only one conclusion is just an exercise in silliness.

    Indeed I really don't know how such a mindset is cultivated that one will degrade and humiliate himself so far to defend the 6000 year old earth "theory". Your argument here doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    12 Feb '12 01:46
    Originally posted by moon1969
    It is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
    That is total nonsense.

    The existence of gravity is confirmed fact.

    The exact strength of gravity and how it is generated and such is covered by the theory of gravity
    which seeks to explain gravity and how it works and why it is.

    But the fact of its existence is not open to question.

    It obviously exists. It's observable, we observe it, we don't float off into space, it exists.

    the existence of gravity is a fact.

    The law of universal gravitation is a fact.

    The theory of gravity (GR) is the current best explanation for and of gravity.

    The theory might get altered and tweaked, but the existence of gravity is not in question.

    If it's possible to claim anything as knowledge then it is possible to claim that gravity exists.
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    12 Feb '12 01:543 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    That is total nonsense.

    The existence of gravity is confirmed fact.

    The exact strength of gravity and how it is generated and such is covered by the theory of gravity
    which seeks to explain gravity and how it works and why it is.

    But the fact of its existence is not open to question.

    It obviously exists. It's observable, we observe it, we d t's possible to claim anything as knowledge then it is possible to claim that gravity exists.
    googlefudge I think the object of the exercise in the post you quote and shoot down was to demonstrate how ridiculous is kelly's argument that even if all the evidence points to one conclusion we must be skeptical when it flies in the face of literal bible interpretation.


    Moreover, as I've said in the past (more for debating utility than a notion I take seriously) - it could, hypothetically be the case that every single observation/perception of gravity is just a fluky special case of some phenomenon that behaves quite differently - there is no way to actually disprove this. Indeed such a departure from common sense to actually hold this view is equivalent to the same depature on the part of kelly and those who champion his arguments.
Back to Top