Wow, Cephyr13, I'm not sure where to start...
Lets try a chronological list of you completely missing my point:
And besides, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a 40,000 year old earth.
How is this relevant? First off, (as still_in74 pointed out) Witnesses will allow the earth to
be BILLIONS of years old. Second, this has exactly nothing to no with my letter.
They believe the dinosaurs were here before the flood...stuff like that.
Uh, yeah. I know. I actually AM a currently fading JW, so I know exactly what "we" believe.
Once again, this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that the Witness
belief is that before the flood all animals ate only plants. Dinosaurs (you know, the
ones living BEFORE THE FLOOD) Ate each other. Alot. This is a clear contradiction.
The facts you have wrong are the ones where there are tribes that are supposedly 10,000 years old.
Are you sure you even READ my letter? Because you seem responding to entirely different arguments.
I didn't say a scrap about "tribes", or when they lived. I said there are PLANTS that have been
living undisturbed for over 10,000 years. All credible scientists agree with this statement.
By the way, God didn't create cancer. He created a perfect world, and when sin came into it, it got cursed and things changed.
if you follow this link (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_975839.htm)
and read the words on the page, you will learn about a scientist.
Working on a fossil. Of a dinosaur. With brain cancer.
Unless you plan on making a claim about some sort of dinoriginal sin, you argument is dead. Mourn the loss and move on.
The dating of trees is also incorrect.
Please note my previously posted link explaining how the multiple tree ring theory CANNOT actually be used to discredit
tree ring chronology:
Different locations on the mountain also affect tree growth in that factors such as temperature, moisture, soil thickness, soil type, susceptibility to fire, susceptibility to wind, and the amount of sunlight received vary, sometimes dramatically. For example, a tree growing near a stream would be less susceptible to the effects of drought. Even the genetic inheritance of a tree plays a role in that it will magnify or retard the above factors. Thus, even trees on the same mountain, of the same species, don't always cross date as nicely as one might think.
Creationists sometimes seize upon such isolated facts in their desperate bid to discredit tree-ring dating.They either don't understand--or don't want to understand--that careful statistical studies have settled the issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
Creationists will even quote statistics for species of trees which no dendrochronologist would ever think of using! Some species of trees are not sensitive enough to the year-to-year climatic changes while others sport such an irregular growth rate as to be worthless for precise tree-ring dating. We get horror stories from creationists about how easy it is for a tree to produce two or more rings in one year. They have neglected to inform their readers that such problems are minimal for some species of trees. Dr. Andrew E. Douglass, who pioneered the field of dendrochronology, found that ponderosa pine and douglass fir are especially excellent for dating purposes. In such species spotting a double ring was "...easy to do by eye after a very little training..." (American Scientist, May-June 1982).
In the case of the bristlecone pine, the problem of double rings is hardly any problem at all!
The dendrochronological check on radiocarbon dating is not without its own problems, the main one being that some species of trees may, under certain climatic conditions such as late frost, produce more than one ring per year [Glock and Agerter, 1963]. Fortunately, however, this has been "extremely rare" in the carefully checked history of bristlecone pines [Ferguson, 1968, p.840].
Ice core dating is useless.
Once again, we don't seem to be both participating in the same conversation.
Ice cores have nothing to do with plants being killed during the flood. I am
sure I COULD defend ice cores, but seeing as it's irrelevant and you likely
wouldn't listen anyway, I'm not going to waste our collective time.
Oh, forgot one thing: those tree core samples that claim over 6,000 years old... those are two tree trunks that grew together.
Hey look... Another claim I never made! I never said there are core samples showing more that 6000 years.
What I said was by cross referencing currently living 4000 year old trees with currently dead trees that
lived their life span through a previous, but overlapping, time span. The "early" part of the live tree
and the "late" part of the dead tree overlap and match like bar codes.
And besides, we already disproved annual tree rings as being growth rings.
No, "we" didn't. Please read over the link I previously referenced for details of your wrongness.
Otherwise, just keep telling yourself that and we can pretend this conversation never happened.