Fundamentalist Christians, can you believe in an 8 million year old tree?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/sc_nm/hungary_forest_dc

Why do you insist that the world is not this old when discoveries like this are made?

Could God not have created this tree 8 million years ago?

Do you believe the Bible to be exhaustive...that everything that happened or could of happened in the past or the future is addressed in the Bible?

Answer 1

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.
2Peter 3:8

Answer 2

Evidence??? Evolution theory relies on faith ...and is not all science!! the idea that humans and chimpanzees separated from a common ancestor is a myth maintained solely as a result of blind devotion to the theory of evolution. The supposedly scientific statements issued in support of this myth consist of prejudiced interpretations based on various similarities between the two, and a very widely dispersed and insufficient fossil record. The entire [so-called] hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal—ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Moreover, it remains the case that although hominid [human’s so-called evolutionary ancestors] fossils are famously rare, the chimpanzee lineage has no fossil record whatsoever. (Henry Gee, Palaeontology: Return to the planet of the apes, Nature, 12 July 2001, 412, pp. 131-132) As we have seen, the scenario of human evolution that New Scientist attempts to portray as a fact is not supported by any scientific evidence. A small number of fossils are depicted as the supposed forerunners of man, though these actually belong to specific species and are far from being transitional forms. For a start, humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler [Emphasis added].

Answer 3

Insisting that the world is not this old only makes all Christians look bad to others. Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible when one realizes that God's measurement of time is not the same as man's.

Answer 4

Goodday,

No, it is not the tree I don't believe it is the person saying it has existed longer than God says it did. I question the dating methods because given catalyst can't be accounted. Time in the scientific world is the cure all for not being able to explain common sense non life over a year is non life. non life to life can't accrue without life. Try it sit and watch a monkey for a year and see if he turns into a man.

Peace

Answer 5

Actually, there are living trees that are older than 6000 years - one tree organism in Utah (I say organism because there are square miles worth of "trees" that share one root system) that is believed to be around 80,000 years old.

I'll try to find links.

Answer 6

He might have put them on the Earth, but created them 7.994 million years before... sitting in his parlour because he had no place else to put them - and then the holy spirit started nagging him about them being in the way so he had to get rid of them.

**edit**

Jeanmarie, of course it didn't have 8 million rings; it stopped growing after it was fossilised, ya bleeding eejit ye!

Answer 7

No,and they can't prove it either.First thing they will say is that carbon 14 dating was used in order to substantiate their claim,but they are still guessing at the age.There is no magic bullet that will pinpoint the age of something.Same ol song and dance.A bunch of bad reporting,and assuming.

Answer 8

its obviously the work of god making the tree appear that old. Why the magic man would want to do it is obviously outside the realm of mere mortal comprehension.


The true answer of course is willful ignorance.

Answer 9

I would be interested in knowing what dating method was used since the article does not mention it.

Answer 10

The tree has been incorrectly judged. It does not say what method was used to date the tree, but since they are all faulty it does not matter.