Tree-ring dating or Dendrochronology is a reliable, scientifc way of determining the age of trees and, if you combine the results, of the miminum age of the earth.
And guess what? The trees whisper to us that they alone already can refute the myth of the earth being less than 6000 years old. In fact, we can prove, not using carbon or any type of dating, that the earth is at least 11000 years old!
Of course, the earth is way older than that, but that would already border on heresy... No, seriously, we just don't have an unbroken record of trees beyond 11000 years ago, so we can't go back further than that (in the meantime).
Credits: YouTube user cdkoo7. This video can only be found on Dnatube due to featuring music from Sony Music Entertainment (The Final Countdown, by Europe). If the logo in the top obscures viewing, just switch to fullscreen using the icon in the bottom-right.
well, yeah, of course. but of the theists, who's even going to believe that those rings mean anything other than pretty designs that'll look good when they chop the trees and make them into dining room tables to seat fifty?
ReplyDeleteStandard creationist answer: Omphalos hypothesis
ReplyDeleteOf course, that answer has its problems too... but that will still be their standard answer.
The Wolf
In addition to tree rings you have ice core sampling and lake bed analysis to use to show an earth older than 6,000 yrs without resorting to carbon dating.
ReplyDeleteThe omphalos argument is just one of many. Here are a few more.
ReplyDelete1. All the laws of physics changed at the time of the flood. Maybe trees had lots of rings before that. Hah -- disprove that!
2. Trees were used in idol worship. So you cannot trust them as aidim.
3. The gematria for "tree" (ayin tzade) is 70 + 90 = 160. The gematria for "false" (shin kaph resh) is 300 + 100 + 200 = 600. This proves that falsehood is greater than even 3 trees.
Bec: I am hoping that one sane theist will watch this video and open his eyes.
ReplyDeleteWolf: You made me look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis, shkoiach! In any case, he did not need to create trees that are dead, just for the heck of it. One tree may have had rings, but why dead trees?
Sol: Thanks, will look up some material on that, too.
Bruce: LOL! Definitely the funniest comment of the week! Want to write a guest post on Purim?
One tree may have had rings, but why dead trees?
ReplyDeleteUK,
Don't ask me... I personally believe the Omphalos theory is wrong. Heck, I personally gave it my own debunking here
The Wolf
Wolf: Thanks for showing me your interesting blog!
ReplyDeleteThe oldest living tree is 4,800 years old.
ReplyDeletejp, I've seen your comments around... still trying to understand: what in the world are you trying to accomplish?
ReplyDeleteif it's just about spurring these conversations, then keep it up - your doing great!
Bruce, LMAO!! your right to the point, in the best way it could be said!
JP: Not sure what your point is; does this mean that the world is only 4800 years old plus a few tree rings? Of course they found older trees that don't live anymore and they matched those tree rings.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you: who says you have to believe that the world is 5771 years old? Is that one of the 13 ikkarim? What is your mekor?
More importantly.
ReplyDeleteAs I explained to many people before you.
Imagine that I had the power to create, unlimited power to create, and I went ahead and created someone to look 20 year olds in front of your eyes and in the space of 5 seconds.
Any study of that person would conclude that they were about 20 years old, but you and I would know that they were only 5 seconds old. Both would be true.
Science would be right to say that the person (or tree) has all of the characteristics of a 20 year old, but we would also be right to say that they were only 5 seconds old.
I am not arguing for one or the other. I am just pointing out that there is no evidence that will prove any one side right or any other side wrong.
Hi L, that is similar to the question if we can prove we exist or that we are perhaps only dreaming we exist. My point is that it is an illogical thing to think that God created us 6000 years ago, so the onus of the proof is really on those who think the world is only 6000 years old to explain away all science and to bring the mekoros that purportedly say that it is 6000 years old. IMHO you don't have to believe that even as a maamin (not one of the 13!) and you could still believe in (a) God of you believe the world is > 6000 years old.
ReplyDeleteL,
ReplyDeletePlease take a look at the link to my blog above. The mutation rates of Y chromosomes as they exist among humanity today, conclusively show that the world (and humanity) are more than 6000 years old -- and furthermore, you cannot use the "God created it looking old" argument with regard to the mutation rate of Y chromosomes.
The Wolf
UK: Religion is not about being proven as true or false, and essential part of religion is belief, the leap of faith. Whether you decide to make that leap is up to you, the point is that religion is designed not to be proven as true or false, so that people have to decide to believe or not. After all, what would be special about admitting what one cannot deny?
ReplyDeleteWhether you take that opinion as one that will dictate the way your life goes is up to you, but that does not prove or disprove either approach.
Wolf: The matter of mutation is just the same as the matter of tree rings. Science tells you what it appears to be based on scientific knowledge. Whether that is the case or not can theoretically still be up in the air.
I can create something now, with the right tools, show it to a scientist, and the scientist will judge it to be hundreds of years old if not more. That is not a failure of science but merely a limitation of science.
Scientists study how chromosomes act and react now, with no certainty as to how that might have changed over time. If you look at matters like height and aging, as the Torah describes it, there is evidence that human biology has evolved since then, and the testing methods used might not be as meaningful.
Again, it is a matter of recognizing that science is limited to description, and not looking into the past. These are not matters of certainty, just of opinion.
Which you choose to believe is up to you, but the endless amount of variables that can exist and existed ensure that there can never be clear certainty on this.
UK,
ReplyDeleteI recommend RadioLab's episode, "Oops," for a humorous and somewhat sad story of an until relatively recently living tree which was even older (if I recall correctly). I also would recommend Bill Bryson's "AT HOME: A Short History of Private Life" for a little story of Dendrochronology on the English countryside - and a door.