JWs and the problem of Creation en toto

by logansrun 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  The bible doesn't seem to be such an accurate source of chronology or history if you have such a large margin of error. How can you justify that? How can we trust the bible's history if it can't even give us a reliable date for one of the most significant eras of human history? Why should we trust bible believers who can torture any interpretation out of the scriptures they want? If the bible is so authoratative, there should be mass consensus.

  Regarding your question about dendrochronology disproving the flood:

  It might interest you to know that trees go back at least 8000 years without being disturbed by Noah's flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings. We could add disease and excessive activity by pests to that list.

  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/tree.html

  You have argued that the flood may have happened between 4500 and 7500 years ago. Are you now going to argue that the flood may have happened over 8200 years ago? If so, then you must have some convincing justification for this.

  rem
• 

  Abaddon

  Golly hooberus, you're always telling me how reliable the Bible is, how come all of a sudden you're hedging bets? You are basically saying that the fall of Jerusalem could have taken place between 2,107 BC and 1,396 AD. Avoidance; you can determine a pretty good date using the Bible, and yet you refuse to use your own Holy Book to back you up. I don't get it, I really really don't, but good luck to you.

  I will look up some nice dendrochronolgy if I get a chance at work tomorrow. I fel it's a bit lke being asked to show there is the colour yellow, and if you know so much about dendrochronolgy then you know there is dendrochronolgy that covers even the apologetic date span you allow yourself.

  I have to ask, are there any other supposed historical parts of the Bible that you don't take literally, seeing how you're practically disowning Biblical Flood Chronology? If so which and how do you know when?
• 

  Valis

  The oldest living tree is high in the mountains of the Bristle Cone forest of the White Mountains of Northern California. Funny enough it is known as Methuselah at 4700 years old....*LOL*

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  hooberus

  The oldest living tree is high in the mountains of the Bristle Cone forest of the White Mountains of Northern California. Funny enough it is known as Methuselah at 4700 years old....*LOL*

  Since the oldest living Bristlecone tree is close to even the most recent date from the flood, then one can conclude that living Bristlecone trees do not disprove the biblical flood.

  Also why are there no living Bristlecone trees known to be much older than this? If a tree can live over 4,000 years why should there not be speciments 7,000 years old?

  Now that we have dealt with the issue of living Bristlecone trees, the issue thus becomes can dead trees be matched accurately with living trees to produce a reliable chronology which would extend past proposed flood dates?

  In order to determine the accuracy of these proposed long chronologies one must examine the assumptions involved. For example do such assumptions start out with conditions which deny a flood, then using these assumptions proceed to disprove flood dates? If so, then this may involve circular reasoning.
• 

  Valis

  The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC!

  Obviously you didn't bother even reading that very simply put website...It refutes the biblical interpretation and dating of the earth by at least 1,000 years..or now will you come with that 1 day=1000 years crap? . There are older dead trees there, but you wouldn't have gotten that if you didn't bother to read it...sheesh..also the flood myth comes much later than creation so don't mess w/me about how it is even close to the time the bible claims, or the interpretations claim it to be..

  Now that we have dealt with the issue of living Bristlecone trees

  we have? Maybe in your very small look at the world through YEC gogles, perhaps someone who knows dendrochornology in more detail will show you the ineptitude of your cheese and cracker man look at the history of the earth....

  For example do such assumptions start out with conditions which deny a flood, then using these assumptions proceed to disprove flood dates?

  either way, the dendrochronology records things like floods and so forth,climate changes , etc...so what is your point? We can use the scientific facts people keep presenting you with to discount the young earth bullshit, but for all that it will do no good...Keep believeing in your delusional creationist myth and you'll be fine I'm sure...*LOL*
• 

  hooberus

  Valis, did you bother to carefully read my last post?
• 

  rem

  In order to determine the accuracy of these proposed long chronologies one must examine the assumptions involved. For example do such assumptions start out with conditions which deny a flood, then using these assumptions proceed to disprove flood dates? If so, then this may involve circular reasoning.

  What assumptions would these be? You have to be pretty blind, man, to stick with your literalist bible beliefs. The evidence is so clear that even a child can understand, but you are so brainwashed that you just close your eyes and cover your ears. Such a sad state.

  rem
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus;
  

  Since the oldest living Bristlecone tree is close to even the most recent date from the flood, then one can conclude that living Bristlecone trees do not disprove the biblical flood.

  Red Herring. Evidence already sited clearly shows that we have dendrochronolgy going back to 7000 BC or so. This is ignored in a Straw Man arguement 'there are no trees alive that disprove the flood' when no one says this. Do you feel such argumentative tactics fit a Christian hooberus?
  

  Also why are there no living Bristlecone trees known to be much older than this? If a tree can live over 4,000 years why should there not be speciments 7,000 years old?

  Things have a finate lifespan. Show me a three hundred year old elephant. You can't? What does that prove? Nothing. This is just another Red Herring; there is proof trees have stood continuously from around 7000 BC, so the absence of individual trees as old as you'd like proves nothing other than the fact they don;t live that long.

  Now that we have dealt with the issue of living Bristlecone trees, the issue thus becomes can dead trees be matched accurately with living trees to produce a reliable chronology which would extend past proposed flood dates?

  "Now having made Red Herrings and Straw Man attacks in some attempt to make a point,,,"

  In order to determine the accuracy of these literalistic Creationist claims one must examine the assumptions involved. For example do such assumptions start out with conditions which deny a naturalistic origin, then using these assumptions proceed to disprove a naturalistic origin? If so, then this may involve circular reasoning.

  I have rephrased your statement slightly to illustrate a further example of the persistant double standard you apply. BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS your whole arguement is invalidated as presuppositionalist with circular reasoning at its core.

  Will you explain your sudden abandonment of the Bible as a reliable dating device? You had some degree of credibility in maintaining the Bible at the core of your arguements, no matter what, as at least that made you consistant. You junking Bible chronology seems to remove that credibility.
• 

  Abaddon

  Nice website Valis, I forgot to say.

  hooberus; the oldest tree would have been 4,865 years old if hadn't been cut down by an over enthusaiastic student in 1964. The oldest current tree is 4,723 years old. Just read the website Valis quoted.

  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-134.htm

  This is great, according to this, the flood was around 2,000 BC. As you refuse to give a date, we'll go with that for a start, shall we? If they are wrong in this date please tell me why you think they are wrong and provide such evidence as you have.

  If we subtract 4,865 years from 2003 AD we get 2861 BC. The classic date given for the flood by Ussher is 2350 BC.

  In light of the date of 2861BC as the date a bristlecone pine (called 'Promethius') started growing, we can state (pending any attempt by you to prove earlier Flood dates are accurate using the Bible) that trees survived the Food. It either didn't happen, or it wasn't global, but the Bible is demonstrably inacurate, and any other Biblical citations cannot be automatically assumed to be any more accurate or divinely inspired than other contemorary documents.

  I would be interested in seeing your arguements supporting later Flood Dates some Creationists have speculated about, I do realise they range from 3398 BC to 2348 BC. I don't see the point in it, as I will outline below, but I'm fascinated at what argumentation you use to support your divergence from Biblical chronology.

  Even IF you satisfactorily defend the earliest date for the flood given, 3398BC, the flood is still disproved.

  The infidels website cited earlier by someone gives quotes research reported on by The Washington Post , December 10, 1984, of a desert shrub dating back to 9678BC.

  As dates for cteation are normally given in the range 3760 BC to 5555 BC, it appears these last two pieces of evidence also casts doubt on the accuracy of the Creation account in the Bible.

  Unless of course you accept the 'appearance of age' arguement.

  Do you?
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:
  

  Red Herring. Evidence already sited clearly shows that we have dendrochronolgy going back to 7000 BC or so. This is ignored in a Straw Man arguement 'there are no trees alive that disprove the flood' when no one says this. Do you feel such argumentative tactics fit a Christian hooberus?

  I never said that any one was claiming that there are living trees which disprove the flood. So it is not a Red Herring or a Straw Man.

  I then moved on to discuss the the next point: Now that we have dealt with the issue of living Bristlecone trees, the issue thus becomes can dead trees be matched accurately with living trees to produce a reliable chronology which would extend past proposed flood dates?

  I simply divided my arguments into two points on the same post. (The reason for this was to bring up the question as to why there are no living tress older than the flood and then to move on to the issue of living and dead trees being matched into chronologies.)

  So your chages of "Now having made Red Herrings and Straw Man attacks in some attempt to make a point,,," are groundless. If you will take the time to review my post again carefully you will clearly see that this is so.

  You often accuse me of things that are untrue.