Re: Poor Noah and tree ring dating

"On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:30:57 -0700 (PDT), in article
<136ad92b-13e1-486e-8545-a29aa419770e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Inez
stated..."

On Aug 18, 10:09 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:43 -0700 (PDT), in article
<16f77da5-9781-4530-ab8d-75d6d233f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Inez
stated..."







On Aug 18, 7:09 am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:44:30 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli

<Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:16 am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:58:31 -0700 (PDT), The Last Conformist

<andre...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:43 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:28:51 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

AFAIK, reliable tree ring dating (dendrochronology) exists for about
ten
thousand years, while Noah sailed *the*ocean only a few thousand years
ago.
One of these theories must be false. WRT the trees, they are hard
evidence
and reliable methods exits that forcing us to believe what the facts
say.

WRT Noah, we have every reason to believe that it is a myth and no
facts
supporting the myth. So creationists, what is it?
Noah or truth?

You forget the power of omphalism.  This is the notion that Adam and
Eve were created with belly buttons (omphali) because having a belly
button is part of the nature of being human, even though these
particular humans were not born and did not need an umbilical cord.
The same notion has that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings
because that is the nature of trees.  So things were created with the
appearance of age and counting rings is not a reliable dating method.

Huh? Rolf asked why the dendrochronological record continues straight
through the Noachian flood, not why it goes back before creation.

Oops, I jumped to the wrong conclusion.   Perhaps it was because I
can't see any problem at all with finding trees that predate the
flood.  The only problem I could find is that the ten-thousand year
age predates creation itself.

Remember that Genesis 6:7 says "And the LORD said, I will destroy man
whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast,
and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me
that I have made them."  It doesn't say anything about destroying
trees.  Also the flood lasted less than a year so that only a single
ring would be disturbed

Do trees often recover after being completely submerged in salt
water (and thus deprived of CO2) for a year?

What evidence is there that the flood was necessarily salty?

The real problem with both this and John Harshman's question is that
it is silly to attempt to refute the flood with tree rings.  God did
not say that trees would be destroyed and trees were not destroyed.
End of argument.

Genesis 7:23 "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon
the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,
and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

I think you would have to include trees as part of "every living
substance."  True, they are not listed in the specifics, but we're
assuming that animals that weren't humans, cattle, birds and did not
creep (such as monkeys or warthogs) were also killed.

Even if you don't agree, "Noah only remained alive, and they that were
with him in the ark" seems fairly definite.  Everything external to
the ark was dead.

A major problem with the Biblical telling of this story is
that there are two different versions of the story mixed
together. For example, one version says that there are two
of each animal, another version says that some animals are
taken by sevens. Another example is the duration of the
Deluge (although I know that literalists have ways to
manipulate the texts when they want to).

That isn't a problem for me, since I don't believe it in the first
place.

I recognize that.


Genesis 7:17 is sometimes taken by the literalists to give
them some extra room on the Ark:

"... to destroy all flesh, wherein in is the breath of life,
from under heaven ..."

This allows them to say that only air-breathing animals were
destroyed, which they take to mean only animals with lungs,
that is, only tetrapods.

I wouldn't think that "the breath of life" meant the animals
breathing, but rather the magic that God used to make them alive, a-la
Adam getting the breath of life earlier in the bible.

But I don't see how this changes what I said. If only Noah and the
residents on the ark remained alive, then everything else was dead.
Are we being literalists or are we not being literalists?

For self-proclaimed literalists, continuity (*) and long-range
consistency (**) are not virtues.

(*) In the sense treated in the Wikipedia article "Continuity
(fiction)".

(**) Or "global consistency". "Local consistency" is a virtue.
Like the plot of an opera.


Relevant to our present issue, this gives us a quote-mine
(er, excuse me ...) this gives us a proof-text to allow
the plants to live off the Ark.


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poor Noah and tree ring dating
    ... Noah or truth? ... The same notion has that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings ... assuming that animals that weren't humans, cattle, birds and did not ... with him in the ark" seems fairly definite. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poor Noah and tree ring dating
    ... Noah or truth? ... The same notion has that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings ...  It doesn't say anything about destroying ... assuming that animals that weren't humans, cattle, birds and did not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poor Noah and tree ring dating
    ... Noah or truth? ... The same notion has that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings ...  It doesn't say anything about destroying ... assuming that animals that weren't humans, cattle, birds and did not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: human ancestors never passed through a knuckle-walking phase
    ... no good reason to change, ... of trees and plants would have gone ... animals RUN? ... only humans and gibbons are obligate bipeds on the ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Battle at Kruger
    ... trees pretty nearly all the time, ... ground in the presence of such animals? ... be a significant problem during the dry season. ... hominid child would last a day. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)