8000 year old trees (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

robto -> 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 4:36:26 PM)

... have been found in Sweden - still living!



Jhud -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 4:37:37 PM)

I heard they were older still, which is even cooler.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 4:54:39 PM)

Are they using radiometric dating to determine the age, or tree rings?



Psalm22 -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 5:31:35 PM)

Interesting.

Betta - according tot he links, carbon-14 dating. Trot out the usual rebuttal.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 5:43:22 PM)

What would be interesting is if they dated it using tree rings and they coincided. However, the people doing the tree ring counting must not know what tree they are dating because they must not know what the tree dates according to radiometric dating. The study should be double blind. Unfortunately, I don't think it's worth chopping down or destroying a tree with so much seniority.



unclemonkey -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 6:36:09 PM)

ORIGINAL:Psalm22
quote:

Betta - according tot he links, carbon-14 dating. Trot out the usual rebuttal.

That won't work here. How could anyone possibly doubt the consistency of atmospheric carbon in the Swiss Alps over the last 10,000 years.



Nothingman -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 6:36:16 PM)

Ridiculous. The Bible doesn't speak of 9000+ year old trees. I refuse to let the brainwashed interpretations of atheistic humanism distort the truth. pfff



essentialsaltes -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 7:20:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

... have been found in Sweden - still living!


This just can't be true! It would demote California to second best, and I won't have that. I suspect the motives of these socialistic Scandinavian 'scientists', using stolen tax moneys to denigrate the Golden State and promote their Eurocentric 'science'.



iluvatar -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 8:21:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

What would be interesting is if they dated it using tree rings and they coincided. However, the people doing the tree ring counting must not know what tree they are dating because they must not know what the tree dates according to radiometric dating. The study should be double blind. Unfortunately, I don't think it's worth chopping down or destroying a tree with so much seniority.


The article says that any one tree trunk can only live to be about 600 years old and that once a trunk dies, the tree (I assume they mean the root system) sprouts a new trunk. If my assumptions are correct, then that would prohibit any tree ring dating.

-Dan.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/16/2008 9:20:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
The article says that any one tree trunk can only live to be about 600 years old and that once a trunk dies, the tree (I assume they mean the root system) sprouts a new trunk. If my assumptions are correct, then that would prohibit any tree ring dating.


I think this article will give you a better idea about how tree trunk/ring dating works.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm

I would say it's more reliable than radiometric dating.

I skimmed the article (though I learned this in my biology class but I forgot most of it because it's been a while since I took biology, so I wanted to refresh my memory) and I found this interesting

quote:


Today, scientists have painstakingly established an unbroken succession of rings extending back in time over 80 centuries (8,000 years).


(from the above link).



iluvatar -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 7:07:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
The article says that any one tree trunk can only live to be about 600 years old and that once a trunk dies, the tree (I assume they mean the root system) sprouts a new trunk. If my assumptions are correct, then that would prohibit any tree ring dating.


I think this article will give you a better idea about how tree trunk/ring dating works.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm

I would say it's more reliable than radiometric dating.

I skimmed the article (though I learned this in my biology class but I forgot most of it because it's been a while since I took biology, so I wanted to refresh my memory) and I found this interesting


Thank you for the article. What I meant was that, because of the way it grows, I don't believe that ring-dating would work on this particular tree.

Looks like my hunch was right (sort of anyways):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm

Spruces can reproduce either by dropping seeds or by a process called layering in which branches become buried and sprout roots into the soil. As you approach the northern tree line, layering becomes the predominant method of reproduction. These new offshoots are essentially clones of the original tree. What scientists did in this case was carbon-dated and DNA-tested some tree material found near a living tree. Some of the old material dated to 8000-9500 (depending on which article you read) years old, and the DNA matched that of the living tree, which means that this tree has been alive, in some form, for 8K+ years.

-Dan.



GroupW -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 10:58:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: robto

... have been found in Sweden - still living!


This just can't be true! It would demote California to second best, and I won't have that. I suspect the motives of these socialistic Scandinavian 'scientists', using stolen tax moneys to denigrate the Golden State and promote their Eurocentric 'science'.

Just think how the poor old bristlecone pines here in CO feel at a measley 2,000 years.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 11:08:29 AM)

I guess I should have paid more attention to what kind of tree it was.



mcp -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 11:30:47 AM)

So it is possible some of the trees survived 1500 yrs of iceage in n. Europe. Interesting, if true. I'm sure that the original location of these roots and ancient tree lines are still being considered.

I guess some fine-tuning of spruce knowledge is in order.



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 12:46:26 PM)

I was really hoping to see what 9,000 tree rings looked like. I was actually worried until I found out that the only way that they had for dating the tree was Carbon dating. Looks like the ol' bristle cone pine is loosing its status as the oldest living organism for nothing.



iluvatar -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/17/2008 9:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

I was really hoping to see what 9,000 tree rings looked like. I was actually worried until I found out that the only way that they had for dating the tree was Carbon dating. Looks like the ol' bristle cone pine is loosing its status as the oldest living organism for nothing.


Do you not believe the dating is accurate?

-Dan.



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/18/2008 10:28:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

I was really hoping to see what 9,000 tree rings looked like. I was actually worried until I found out that the only way that they had for dating the tree was Carbon dating. Looks like the ol' bristle cone pine is loosing its status as the oldest living organism for nothing.


Do you not believe the dating is accurate?

-Dan.


Sounds like a loaded question, Dan. Are you sure you want this thread to be hopelessly lost in that tangent?

~Dan



iluvatar -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/18/2008 7:37:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

I was really hoping to see what 9,000 tree rings looked like. I was actually worried until I found out that the only way that they had for dating the tree was Carbon dating. Looks like the ol' bristle cone pine is loosing its status as the oldest living organism for nothing.


Do you not believe the dating is accurate?

-Dan.


Sounds like a loaded question, Dan. Are you sure you want this thread to be hopelessly lost in that tangent?

~Dan


Why should this thread be any different? [8D]

-Dan.



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/19/2008 9:18:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

I was really hoping to see what 9,000 tree rings looked like. I was actually worried until I found out that the only way that they had for dating the tree was Carbon dating. Looks like the ol' bristle cone pine is loosing its status as the oldest living organism for nothing.


Do you not believe the dating is accurate?

-Dan.


Sounds like a loaded question, Dan. Are you sure you want this thread to be hopelessly lost in that tangent?

~Dan


Why should this thread be any different? [8D]

-Dan.

I guess it wouldn't be; I just don't like being the cause. I wouldn't be very useful in a Carbon dating argument, though. I've come to realize that I know a lot less than most people, and I question what I do know. But I will ask one question: if the ratio of C14 produced to C14 lost is not in equilibrium, but it is assumed to be in equilibrium when an artifact is tested, will the results be skewed?



essentialsaltes -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/20/2008 11:29:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I guess it wouldn't be; I just don't like being the cause. I wouldn't be very useful in a Carbon dating argument, though. I've come to realize that I know a lot less than most people, and I question what I do know. But I will ask one question: if the ratio of C14 produced to C14 lost is not in equilibrium, but it is assumed to be in equilibrium when an artifact is tested, will the results be skewed?


Yes. But under reasonable circumstances, the error is on the order of 10%-20%. Furthermore, by using other methods (dendrochronology, other radiometric methods, ice cores, etc.), the radiocarbon curve has been calibrated to improve the dating method considerably.



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/20/2008 11:51:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I guess it wouldn't be; I just don't like being the cause. I wouldn't be very useful in a Carbon dating argument, though. I've come to realize that I know a lot less than most people, and I question what I do know. But I will ask one question: if the ratio of C14 produced to C14 lost is not in equilibrium, but it is assumed to be in equilibrium when an artifact is tested, will the results be skewed?


Yes. But under reasonable circumstances, the error is on the order of 10%-20%. Furthermore, by using other methods (dendrochronology, other radiometric methods, ice cores, etc.), the radiocarbon curve has been calibrated to improve the dating method considerably.


Well, I don't know what dendrochronology is, and discussing all the radiometric methods would take months to finish, but I do know that ice cores come with a slew of assumptions. In my Earth Systems Science class we learned about ice cores, and you HAVE to assume that the ice core represents a linear chronology, an unreasonable, hyper-uniformitarian assumption. We KNOW that there are areas that do not follow such a uniform progression. There are times when the ice is packed uniformly, but you have to assume that it's been going on for the past 10,000 years or however long it is that you're trying to say is represented by the ice core.



essentialsaltes -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/20/2008 1:09:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I guess it wouldn't be; I just don't like being the cause. I wouldn't be very useful in a Carbon dating argument, though. I've come to realize that I know a lot less than most people, and I question what I do know. But I will ask one question: if the ratio of C14 produced to C14 lost is not in equilibrium, but it is assumed to be in equilibrium when an artifact is tested, will the results be skewed?


Yes. But under reasonable circumstances, the error is on the order of 10%-20%. Furthermore, by using other methods (dendrochronology, other radiometric methods, ice cores, etc.), the radiocarbon curve has been calibrated to improve the dating method considerably.


Well, I don't know what dendrochronology is


Oops. That's just a fancy word for tree-ring dating. More info here from an interesting site run by a "conservative Christian".



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/20/2008 2:01:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
I guess it wouldn't be; I just don't like being the cause. I wouldn't be very useful in a Carbon dating argument, though. I've come to realize that I know a lot less than most people, and I question what I do know. But I will ask one question: if the ratio of C14 produced to C14 lost is not in equilibrium, but it is assumed to be in equilibrium when an artifact is tested, will the results be skewed?


Yes. But under reasonable circumstances, the error is on the order of 10%-20%. Furthermore, by using other methods (dendrochronology, other radiometric methods, ice cores, etc.), the radiocarbon curve has been calibrated to improve the dating method considerably.


Well, I don't know what dendrochronology is


Oops. That's just a fancy word for tree-ring dating. More info here from an interesting site run by a "conservative Christian".


I'm familiar with tree ring dating. I think it's possible to accurately discover how old a tree is using it. Dr. Hovind was wrong when he said that it's inaccurate. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you can line trees up in order and come up with a record that goes back 40 gazillion years, but I do think you can accurately tell how old a tree was when it died.

Edit: That is, assuming that it isn't like this tree which sprouted what I assume is an adventitious new stem from what I assume was the root system. Guess I should read something about this type of tree.



Raptorman -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/21/2008 12:46:54 PM)

Now this is interesting data. The rings won't necessarily give you the exact number of years (different season lengths, and the like), but it does get very close. If the YEC model is correct, this would actually help bolster a nagging suspicion I've had for a while, that Noah's Flood was longer ago than the standard date of 4500 years. With Mesopotamia, Native American societies, the spread of men via the Ice Age, etc., it seems like an awfully short time to squeeze half of human history into. Because of that, I have suspected that the Flood may have taken place about 9,000-10,000 years ago (with creation being maybe around 12,000 years ago, at the most, assuming us young-earthers are right about the "big picture" of origins). Whatever the case, these trees are an interesting find.



DanJames -> RE: 8000 year old trees (4/21/2008 7:18:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raptorman

Now this is interesting data. The rings won't necessarily give you the exact number of years (different season lengths, and the like), but it does get very close. If the YEC model is correct, this would actually help bolster a nagging suspicion I've had for a while, that Noah's Flood was longer ago than the standard date of 4500 years. With Mesopotamia, Native American societies, the spread of men via the Ice Age, etc., it seems like an awfully short time to squeeze half of human history into. Because of that, I have suspected that the Flood may have taken place about 9,000-10,000 years ago (with creation being maybe around 12,000 years ago, at the most, assuming us young-earthers are right about the "big picture" of origins). Whatever the case, these trees are an interesting find.


Well, I'll try to clarify something about tree ring dating. There are "false rings" where an otherwise good season will become inhospitable to growth for a time, and then pick back up again. It causes what appears to be a ring at first glance, but upon closer examination, is noticably different from an actual annual ring. So you can get very close to the actual age of the tree within a few years at worst. But this tree was not dated with tree ring dated, but with carbon dating. I'd be interested in hearing your view of earth's history if you wanted to start a new thread. I wouldn't be able to help much, though because of my limited understanding of history which includes little more than what I read in last quarter's Answers Magazine.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI