I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

The discussion was why there is similarity. Not hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. And... Evolution (common ancestry) is not falsifiable.

I just gave you two ways to falsify it. The only reason they're "unrealistic scenarios" is they don't actually exist. However, they are quite biologically plausible. (PhD Biologist here)

There are many many examples of science proving the exact opposite to be true of what Darwinists were claiming. For example... Evolutionists thought our appendix was homologous... A useless evolutionary leftover. science has shown that the appendix is functional, and does not fit any evolutionary path; So, now evolutionists claim our appendix is analogous and that I must have evolved independently dozens of times.

It's only "useful" as a reservoir for bacteria, which is all well and good but not why it originally existed. It is an evolutionary leftover of a Cecum found in more herbivorous animals, which serves as a fermentation chamber for plant matter. That it still has some function doesn't make the earlier statement wrong.

Care to try again?

You are attempting to argue against hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. (Strawman)

No, I'm giving you predictions that recent de-novo creationism would make for DNA sequences from biological life forms.

Hooray..... You finally got to the actual argument. The evidence is consistent is consistent with a common designer.

No, Identical parts between organisms would be consistent with a recent common designer. There's no reason for a sliding scale of difference that doesn't have anything to do with the function of the genes or organisms. There's no reason genes have to have these specific patterns.


Cytochrome C oxidase does the same thing in every organism, and yet there's a pattern of nucleotide differences and similarities that are most easily arranged into a tree of ancestry.

We should expect that our DNA is more similar to other primates than it is to a carrot. It has nothing to do with common ancestry.

Why should our DNA be more similar to primates than other mammals? Was God intentionally trying to make us think we evolved from them? Why not intentionally create humans as unique organisms with unique genetic sequences? There's no biological necessity for it.

Why are rats and mice so genetically different from each other despite their similar appearance while humans and primates are tremendously genetically similar?

And, if anything your point number three, is evidence that common ancestry is an unfalsifiable belief system. It is a system of explaining evidence to apriori beliefs.

No, it's a system of explaining the available data. It's not easy to falsify because it's designed to explain reality.

Research shows some genes such as human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

Those aren't genes, they're retrotransposons. Viral fragments that invade the genome. Occasionally you will find some individual bits of the genome that are different from close relatives. This is not especially surprising since retrotransposons can enter the genome in ways other than just inheritance. Inheritance doesn't always give perfect relationships for every gene, that's why scientists normally use many genes or whole genomes (as was true of the figure I posted).

Your objection is classic cherry picking anyway, the YEC go to defense. Look at this tiny piece of data over here, that falsifies this mountain of data over here. Orrrrr maybe that tiny piece of data isn't what you think it is, and you're just wrong.

We can ... We should perform science looking for design and purpose.

That's assuming the truth of your proposition before the science is even done.

Our Creator used similar genes to perform similar functions in similar creatures. Sometimes, we need to investigate... There is joy in discovering ', that's why God created that way'. You should not just dismiss similar DNA sequences with 'evolution did it'.

There are also many *broken* genes that are shared between humans and primates. There's no similar function to explain them. Beta Hemoglobin pseudogene is a great example.

This isn't a "dismissal". You're using the apriori assumption that EVERYTHING in the genome must be functional because God wouldn't create a genome with broken stuff in it. That's not how science is performed. We look at the data and go where it leads.

Human psi beta is clearly a hemoglobin gene, or what's left of it. Interestingly enough the sequence is more similar to the same psi beta genes found in other primates than to the functional human beta hemoglobin gene.

 

[The Barbarian]

*Genesis tell us that God created the earth

You've merely revised a figurative story to make it fit your desires. As you learned, there is no way to make a story that has mornings and evenings before there is a sun to have them, into a literal history.

Why not just set your pride aside and let it be God's way?

 

[The Barbarian]

The skull 2-3 seems to have evolved quite fast.

In the space of a few million years, which in geological time, is reasonably fast.

How did the first cell evolve?

That's a really good question. We can start by asking "what is the most important structure that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell? And then we can start to look at what that structure can tell us.

I'm not trying to be mysterious, but you asked a perceptive question, and I'm guessing you can come up with the next question here. What do you think?

 

[Alate_One]

Falsification of the design ideas would probably most obviously be done through a statistical analysis of the DNA sets. With design would come relatively low entropy within a created kind.

Do you honestly think people don't do statistical analysis of DNA data? There's no "created kind" that shows up. The patterns in DNA data don't follow your predictions.

Genomes that are small and streamlined (low entropy for you perhaps?) are typically two types of animals: Birds that are high energy fliers, and insects with complete metamorphosis. Not what you predicted, but consistent with natural selection acting on genomes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3924074/

Falsification of the descent idea would be to apply the study to more than just a small selection of animals.

Oh if we only had more data we could get rid of that evolution stuff.

 

[The Barbarian]

The discussion was why there is similarity. Not hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios.

We know very well why DNA analyses give us the same family tree as phenotypes. We can check it by looking at organisms of known descent. And as predicted, the closer the relationship, the more similar DNA will be. That's not a mystery at all.

And... Evolution (common ancestry) is not falsifiable.

See above. If organisms of known descent did not have DNA similarities to the degree of relatedness, that would easily falsify common descent.

For example... Evolutionists thought our appendix was homologous...

Turns out, it is. In other animals,it serves as a fermentation chamber. Ours is vestigial.

A useless evolutionary leftover.

No. That's a common creationist misconception, but it's false. "Vestigial" does not mean "useless." And it's been that way from the start. Darwin cited examples of such structures no longer having their original function,but evolving new ones. Our appendix is an example. There are useless vestigial organs, such as wings under the fused elytra of some beetles. But that's not the norm.

So, now evolutionists claim our appendix is analogous and that I must have evolved independently dozens of times.

Nope. Another creationist fairy tale.

Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Condon and Telford 1991; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 9). The word "caecum" actually means "blind" in Latin, reflecting the fact that the bottom of the caecum is a blind pouch (a dead-end or cul-de-sac).

In most vertebrates, the caecum is a large, complex gastrointestinal organ, enriched in mucosal lymphatic tissue (Berry 1900), and specialized for digestion of plants (see Figure 2; Kardong 2002, pp. 510-515). The caecum varies in size among species, but in general the size of the caecum is proportional to the amount of plant matter in a given organism's diet. It is largest in obligate herbivores, animals whose diets consist entirely of plant matter. In many herbivorous mammals the caecum is as large as the rest of the intestines, and it may even be coiled and longer than the length of the entire organism (as in the koala). In herbivorous mammals, the caecum is essential for digestion of cellulose, a common plant molecule. The caecum houses specialized, symbiotic bacteria that secrete cellulase, an enzyme that digests cellulose. Otherwise cellulose is impossible for mammals to digest.

The structure of the caecum is specialized to increase the efficiency of cellulose fermentation. As a "side branch" from the gut it is able to house a large, dense, and permanent colony of specialized bacteria. Being a dead-end sac at the beginning of the large intestine, it allows more time for digesting food to reside in the gut and ferment more completely, before passing through the large intestine where the resulting nutrients are absorbed. However, even though humans are herbivorous, the small human caecum does not house significant quantities of cellulase-excreting bacteria, and we cannot digest more than but a few grams of cellulose per day (Slavin, Brower, and Marlett 1980).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

 

[Bradley D]

In the space of a few million years, which in geological time, is reasonably fast.



That's a really good question. We can start by asking "what is the most important structure that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell? And then we can start to look at what that structure can tell us.

I'm not trying to be mysterious, but you asked a perceptive question, and I'm guessing you can come up with the next question here. What do you think?

All structures must have cells. At fist they did not realize cells to be made up of many parts. It takes many cells to make something exist. Therefore cells too must have evolved. Therefore to begin with evolution one must begin at the beginning. Its evolution is hard to explain is it not? How far back must we go to discover how the first cell came about without which no living thing exists.

 

[The Barbarian]

All structures must have cells. At fist they did not realize cells to be made up of many parts.

But there is one part that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell. Think about what that is.

It takes many cells to make something exist.

It takes one cell to make a bacterium.

Therefore cells too must have evolved.

So the evidence shows. The hardest step seems to have been from prokaryote to eukaryote. The evidence says it was by endosymbiosis.

Therefore to begin with evolution one must begin at the beginning. Its evolution is hard to explain is it not?

Seems not. But of course, evolution is not about the way life began. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.

How far back must we go to discover how the first cell came about without which no living thing exists.

That is something outside of evolutionary theory, which assumes life and describes how it changes.

But here's the key:
The simplest organelle,without which there could be no cells, is the cell membrane. It is a very simple phospholipid bilayer, which forms spontaneously into vesicles.

All cells retain this primitive membrane; it's modified by molecules penetrating the membrane:

There are surely more efficient ways, but it's very difficult to redo something this simple and basic.

 

[Lon]

Sorry this is very wrong. A tree that doesn't produce rings is dead. The rings do get narrower as trees get older or suffer poor conditions but that's why dendrochronologists use microscopes. Aside from palm trees and tree ferns that never produce rings at all.

With a PhD, you need to look this up: Tree age and ways to age a tree How can I talk with you about advanced science ideas when you don't really know the basic ones?

Do you think that anything that cannot be personally observed cannot be studied by science?

Yes. Unless you experience it by any of your five senses, then science cannot study it.

Firsthand experience is scientifically inferior to natural evidence that can be studied.

:think: True? I'd suggest there is NO way to scientifically make any statement without firsthand experience. You have to be able to test something in science or it isn't verified/verifiable.

Because I could say that I've personally observed all kinds of things. Can you be sure I wasn't confused or deluded when I report them? No. But if I have evidence to show you, that you can also analyze, then we have a very different situation.

Look at True? above. Note the author says all interplay in science investigation. While I understand your general premise, I'd suggest you need to come up with a much clearer conveyance of what you mean because this, to my science knowledge, is incorrect. I DO see it in 'us/them' pseudo-science discussions(many on TOL) but rarely if ever in science discussion. You have to interpret data but must theorize before testing as well as critically analyze whether the conclusions drawn are substantive. In our discussion, the age of the earth is very much either repeated without experiment from another, or guessed/attempt at calculations. In this sense, asking whether science is doing a good job at its guesses IS good science. I have to wonder at times. When I'm teaching science, if I get a question, or even someone who disagrees, I 1) teach, and 2) look at the evidence with the student. The 'nuh uh' and 'is too' tenor of discussion by science teachers and science employees on TOL is always painful for me to watch. Such discussions do not promote good science. If science knowledge itself is the answer to any misheld idea, it is odd that it is not employed but instead the banter ensues.

 

[Stripe]

Do you honestly think people don't do statistical analysis of DNA data?

Try to react wildly to what people say, not what you wish they had said.

Of course statistical analyses are done. I specified a particular type of study.

There's no "created kind" that shows up.

Because you've done the study, right.

The patterns in DNA data don't follow your predictions.

What prediction? :idunno:

Genomes that are small and streamlined (low entropy for you perhaps?)

That wasn't a question of comparative analysis. It looks like you simply do not understand what was being said. There are two competing ideas: common Designer and common descent. An entropy study might falsify design, that is, if entropy in a single genome (for every example) were shown to be too high, we might be able to rule it out.

Comparing birds and bees doesn't match what I said.

Instead of reacting, try reading.

Oh if we only had more data we could get rid of that evolution stuff.

Only fear would prompt such a response. Maybe the data would not falsify your idea. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

If organisms of known descent did not have DNA similarities to the degree of relatedness, that would easily falsify common descent.

This is question-begging nonsense.

In science, we look to falsify our ideas, not assume the truth of them.

Like here:

"Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors."

It's impossible to test an idea that you always assert as a starting condition.

 

[Alate_One]

With a PhD, you need to look this up: Tree age and ways to age a tree How can I talk with you about advanced science ideas when you don't really know the basic ones?

If you had read your own links, you might know what I said is true. At no point does any of your links say "trees stop making rings as they get older". Occasionally they may make an extra ring or two or skip a ring under extreme circumstances, but there's no stopping for a long period of time without the tree dying. This is because tree rings are layers of conductive tissue and they typically only last a year.

Yes. Unless you experience it by any of your five senses, then science cannot study it.

Welp I guess X-rays, UV rays and atoms are out then.

 

[6days]

It's only "useful" as a reservoir for bacteria, which is all well and good but not why it originally existed. It is an evolutionary leftover of a Cecum found in more herbivorous animals, which serves as a fermentation chamber for plant matter. That it still has some function doesn't make the earlier statement wrong. Care to try again?

As a PhD biologist that you claim you are, your answer shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. And as a Christian your answer contradicts scripture.

"These results, together with immunological and medical evidence, refute some of Darwin's hypotheses and suggest that the appendix is adaptive but has not evolved as a response to any particular diet..." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

The article says the immunological and medical evidence suggests the appendix has not evolved as a response to any particular diet and is not an evolutionary leftover of a Cecum, as you believe. In fact, The researchers were unable to show any evolutionary pathway on their imaginary tree, so make the silly claim that the appendix must have evolved independently somewhere around three dozen times.

Our appendix contains highly specialized lymphoid follicles with a rich blood supply suggesting purpose and function. We know it is a storehouse of good bacteria, which seems to be especially important in fetal and early childhood development. It is also possible that our appendix is triggered by a genetic switch serving greater function under certain environmental pressures.

Scripture shows us that the belief we evolved from herbivorous animals as you suggest, is heretical in that God created man directly from the dust of the ground, and then later created woman from this side of the man.

You asked 'Care to try again?' There is no need, to start mentioning other organs, as our appendix is awesome evidence against evolutionary beliefs... And awesome evidence of the truth of God's Word. We should praise God because we are fearfully and wonderfully made (psalm 139:14) but we live in a world where pain and suffering exist because of human sin (Genesis 3)

 

[7djengo7]

I didn't know virtually any actual evidence when I was a YEC. As I was exposed to evidence I realized it did not support YEC. And as I continue to learn more about biology, evolution becomes still better supported by the evidence I find.

So, while you were a YEC (which, as you say, was for "most of" your life), you never believed/said that evidence supports YEC?

 

[7djengo7]

Additionally the pattern of features we see is a pattern of inheritance. Linneaus' classification system (he was a creationist and long before Darwin's time btw) creates a nested pattern of features, a tree of inheritance.

Are you saying Linnaeus said/meant that humans inherited high foreheads and thin skull bones (or any other characteristics of humans) from non-humans? If so, then what (if anything) do you mean when you say he was a creationist?

Why do you say your graphic, here, has to do with inheritance? And, if it does, somehow, depict inheritance of some sort, nevertheless, who, looking at it, would be able to say, rationally, that it depicts one species inheriting something from another species? If any idea of inheritance, whatsoever, could be rationally thought to be depicted in your graphic, it would seem that it could only be an idea of inheritance such that a species in some sense inherits from the genus of which it is a subclass, and that a genus in some sense inherits from the family of which it is a subclass, and that a family in some sense inherits from the order of which it is a subclass, and so on. But where in your graphic do you imagine you find anything remotely resembling a depiction of the idea of one species inheriting from another species--of one subclass inheriting from another subclass with which it is coordinate?? Wouldn't you need to stack another plunger head at the top of your picture, above the one labeled "species", and label this additional plunger head, "species", also, in order to depict one species inheriting from another species??

Your confusion seems to stem in part from the fact that you apparently can't tell the difference between a pedigree and a tree of porphyry.



Also, from what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?

 

[Alate_One]

"These results, together with immunological and medical evidence, refute some of Darwin's hypotheses and suggest that the appendix is adaptive but has not evolved as a response to any particular diet..." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

You're hanging an awful lot of supposition on one paper. That's generally a bad idea. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. I'm not finding any other papers that cite that one, so I will reserve judgement.

Regardless there are a few vestigial structures in the anatomy of some organisms. Things that might be actually vestigial are typically features found in only some of the population of a species. I think the appendix doesn't qualify for that.

But there are some human structures that are:

Darwin's Tubercle

But the best vestigial structures are the genetic remnants themselves.

Three Vitellogenin (egg yolk protein) genes found in several species of Marsupials - Opossums and wallabies. (Gallus gallus being the domestic chicken)

Why would they have those genes since they don't lay eggs (and should have never done so according to the YEC "model".)

You asked 'Care to try again?' There is no need, to start mentioning other organs, as our appendix is awesome evidence against evolutionary beliefs... And awesome evidence of the truth of God's Word. We should praise God because we are fearfully and wonderfully made (psalm 139:14) but we live in a world where pain and suffering exist because of human sin (Genesis 3)

Even if the study you cite is correct about the appendix, that doesn't refute common ancestry or evolution in general. It just means the ideas about that one particular organ may not be in line with the evidence. If the evidence shows they're wrong, they will be changed. That is the power of science, when it's shown to be in error, it gets changed to match the data.

 

[Alate_One]

Are you saying Linnaeus said/meant that humans inherited high foreheads and thin skull bones (or any other characteristics of humans) from non-humans?

Those listed features are the apomorphies (new features) of the listed group. But each group that follows from another group inherits those characteristics. Humans inherited our hair and milk glands from our mammalian ancestors for example, and our grasping hands from primate ancestors.

If so, then what (if anything) do you mean when you say he was a creationist?

I mean he was a Young Earth creationist. He also lived long before Darwin.

Also, from what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?

From simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures.

 

[Lon]

If you had read your own links, you might know what I said is true. At no point does any of your links say "trees stop making rings as they get older". Occasionally they may make an extra ring or two or skip a ring under extreme circumstances, but there's no stopping for a long period of time without the tree dying. This is because tree rings are layers of conductive tissue and they typically only last a year.

:doh: You are lousy at reading comprehension then. How MUCH of the articles did you read? Didn't you see that in some places where the climate doesn't change, the rings are not there or not pronounced? Some Oak trees have no rings. I believe one of those links said an aging tree near death, will stop creating rings, but it could have been a third link. At least one of us is reading instead of 'nuh uh' ing. lain:

I guess X-rays, UV rays and atoms are out then.

Right. The only thing you can verify is the evidence, not the actual. I cannot see air BUT I breathe it. In the same manner, unless it is observed with your five senses, you cannot verify it for everyone. It is this 'unverifiable' stigma that makes a thing difficult. I cannot witness macro evolution (neither can you). What we do is derive an idea based off of 'evidence.' Even if an experiment is repeatable, we don't believe it is the only way something works. We are fairly sure, for instance, that there are better cures for cancer than chemo and radiation. Science is about application and ability, not worrying whether I can or cannot prove I come from common ancestry where 'commonality' is more important. We don't have to assume I come from a common ape. Instead, we simply need to care if the experiment I'm doing 'can' be applied to humans as well as any of the test subjects (generally animals).

 

[Alate_One]

:doh: You are lousy at reading comprehension then. How MUCH of the articles did you read? Didn't you see that in some places where the climate doesn't change, the rings are not there or not pronounced? Some Oak trees have no rings.

Answers.com is your source? :rotfl: Here is one place I do have direct personal experience. Oak tree species living in a temperate climate definitely have rings, in fact quite clear and obvious ones. Oak furniture is something you've seen I'm sure, and it has very clear rings that are beautiful when cut tangentially.

Now yes a tree living in a tropical rainforest may not have obvious rings simply because there is no start and stop of growth (which is what creates the rings in the first place), but you might see some stopping points that indicate drought or stress. Trees in tropical dry forests produce rings due to annual wet and dry seasons. But angiosperm and gymnosperm trees living in virtually all of the USA will produce annual rings the vast majority of the time.

So this assertion of yours is yet again shown to be a red herring. Dendrochronology, generally speaking, isn't done with trees in tropical rainforests.

I believe one of those links said an aging tree near death, will stop creating rings, but it could have been a third link.

It would have to be quite near death and sometimes *part* of a tree will die but not all of it. But you can tell by the pattern of the rings then. Because the rings will stop on one place in the trunk but not in another. I happen to have a tree cookie with that very pattern. But the tree was still producing rings on part of the trunk up until the time it died. It ended up as a heart shape rather than round due to the dead spots.

Below is an example diagram of a tree cookie.

At least one of us is reading instead of 'nuh uh' ing. lain:

One of us actually has some botanical knowledge and the other is trying to internet search their way through the problem.

Ultimately the problem for YEC is there are trees with good ring records that are over 5000 years old (Bristle cone pines). If we include cross dated rings from the same species we're looking at closer to 10,000 years.

Right. The only thing you can verify is the evidence, not the actual. I cannot see air BUT I breathe it. In the same manner, unless it is observed with your five senses, you cannot verify it for everyone.

Sure you can. It's called data and evidence.

We are fairly sure, for instance, that there are better cures for cancer than chemo and radiation.

Um, no we aren't.

 

[Stripe]

And the fallacies just keep on rolling:

You're hanging an awful lot of supposition on one paper. That's generally a bad idea. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. I'm not finding any other papers that cite that one, so I will reserve judgement.

Presumably, there is a number of studies at which point you will accept something. Do you know what that number is? Why don't you stick with critical thinking instead?

Regardless there are a few vestigial structures in the anatomy of some organisms. Things that might be actually vestigial are typically features found in only some of the population of a species. I think the appendix doesn't qualify for that. But there are some human structures that are: Darwin's Tubercle

Assertion sans evidence, ie, question-begging nonsense. You have no reason to assert that this structure is of any significance without the assumption that people and monkeys share a common ancestor.

We prefer a discussion that doesn't involve constantly having to steer you on the path of rationality.

Why would they have those genes since they don't lay eggs (and should have never done so according to the YEC "model".)

Because the gene sequence has a common function in the developmental stage of birds and marsupials. It's like how airplanes and cars both have wheels. Perhaps when you learn to respect what the other side says, you will stop the diversionary tactic of a multitude of questions and engage in a scientific discussion.

Even if the study you cite is correct about the appendix, that doesn't refute common ancestry or evolution in general. It just means the ideas about that one particular organ may not be in line with the evidence. If the evidence shows they're wrong, they will be changed. That is the power of science, when it's shown to be in error, it gets changed to match the data.

And you finish it off with a moving of the goalposts. It is the Darwinists who use the term "vestigial." Creationists should not use it. When they do, as in this case, it is to criticize the importation of Darwinism through terminology that has no place in a discussion where one side rejects your ideas.

Darwinists used the term to mean "useless" and when their assertions are shown false, they redefine it.

The fact is, the appendix is a useful part of the human body, pointing to the Designer.

 

[Lon]

Answers.com is your source? :rotfl: Here is one place I do have direct personal experience. Oak tree species living in a temperate climate definitely have rings, in fact quite clear and obvious ones. Oak furniture is something you've seen I'm sure, and it has very clear rings that are beautiful when cut tangentially.

Ask as compared to you? Sorry, with your batting average, I'll take Ask at this point. You can laugh at that, but why do we need to be doing inane basal humor? How old are you? 27 with a PhD? You need to work on it.
See, most of us with degrees actually ask question, attack later. Perhaps you are getting it from other's, but I'm seldom shooting for lowbrow humor or discussion. Rather, I'm asking you what you are reading and "why" you aren't reading the same material I'm reading. I don't, for example, dismiss Ask.com sight unseen. That'd be a huge mistake that I'll leave to you. I'm just not that arrogant or ill-informed. Sorry, this one backfires on you. Bring your PhD back up to par.

Now yes a tree living in a tropical rainforest may not have obvious rings simply because there is no start and stop of growth (which is what creates the rings in the first place), but you might see some stopping points that indicate drought or stress. Trees in tropical dry forests produce rings due to annual wet and dry seasons. But angiosperm and gymnosperm trees living in virtually all of the USA will produce annual rings the vast majority of the time.

That is fine 'when it works.' It isn't when it doesn't. Point? One: This is an example, not THE discussion. Rather, you are attacking what you don't know as if you do then reading to quickly back yourself up. For what? To naysay what generally passes for age? The original point was that we cannot always use the same standards, thus dating the earth is a difficult prospect. Some things point to an old earth and others that it isn't quite that old( like dinosaur skin -try not to get lost in details, you've a PhD).

So this assertion of yours is yet again shown to be a red herring. Dendrochronology, generally speaking, isn't done with trees in tropical rainforests.

:dizzy: Sorry. You are lost in inane details trying to assert prowess but losing respect over your hard-earned PhD for it. You are digging in the gradeschool playground dirt. Let's try to rise above it. I really don't like banter. Perhaps you felt slighted at my jib regarding trees (that you admit here is true, red-herring or not and STILL just lost in example :mmph: ). I don't agree often with Barbarian, but the two of us can carry on an adult conversation. I don't think he has a PhD, but he does have a science degree.

It would have to be quite near death and sometimes *part* of a tree will die but not all of it. But you can tell by the pattern of the rings then. Because the rings will stop on one place in the trunk but not in another. I happen to have a tree cookie with that very pattern. But the tree was still producing rings on part of the trunk up until the time it died. It ended up as a heart shape rather than round due to the dead spots.

Below is an example diagram of a tree cookie.

One of us actually has some botanical knowledge and the other is trying to internet search their way through the problem.

At one point, I was going to take the high road and thank you for attempting to bring this back to an academic high standard, but then you've dropped down to attempt to one-up like a school-yard brawl lain: No, I've taught science, so get that part right at least. This is beneath me, if it isn't beneath you

Ultimately the problem for YEC is there are trees with good ring records that are over 5000 years old (Bristle cone pines). If we include cross dated rings from the same species we're looking at closer to 10,000 years.

Several points: "If" you've a love for the Word of God, then God created full-grown trees Genesis 1:2-4 If the days are literal, then these were all made 'already mature.' I've no idea at this point whether God is where you get your truth or not so have to hope this means something to you. If not, then go ahead and stay committed to science, but it does cast doubt, as I said, on one's commitment to Loving Christ. When I was in college, I had several science hod's that were YEC. That at least, should mean something to you and give you pause. My daughter's Science hod also heads the campus bible study. That makes at least a couple of genuine science majors that are YEC and STILL teaching in Public College school systems. It's important to this conversation because even if you've gone to banter at this point in thread, you should be treating those with science degrees on par, who disagree with you, with some respect. Why? Because more important than science is your fellowship with the saints 'if' Christ is your love. I think about this every time I enter this conversation with you. I WANT to see the love of Christ. I want to contend with a brother as iron sharpens iron. I'd suggest that I'm the only one at this point even addressing that part of the OP premise but I cannot and will not do it on a subpar banter level.

For a moment, if it comes between 'science' or 'God' then science is out for me. I love truth and see science as exploring truths, but if the two come in conflict, I'm sorry, I've got to depart from science and any Christian who chooses unwisely at that point. I'm not trying to do much, but give you the cards on the table at this point, because unless I can discuss actual scripture with you, the premise of your thread is simply "I love science and kind of love Jesus." "I love Jesus" means something or it doesn't. We have to be able to explain what we mean as well as discuss what we are doing because of that love. Love motivates. 1 John 4:20

Sure you can. It's called data and evidence.

I just said that. It is derivative AND interpretive knowledge. Most of science is, but things that you can see, feel, hear, smell, or taste, or at least perceive (like mathematics), then the verifiable nature of the science truth is always going to be in question. Further? That's a 'good' thing for science. It makes it have to be more and more sure by testing theory that isn't as solid. It is why chemo and radiation may no longer be used in the future, we are replacing the iron lung, etc.

Um, no we aren't.

Incorrect. and [emoji14] ?

How old are you and why aren't you able to do emojis correctly?

I may have to leave you and talk with adults after this. I will not sustain schoolyard banter with one who claims to love my Lord and Savior.

This ain't it, and no you can't take your toys and go home. Your PhD doesn't grant you that right.

My mother has cancer. Chemo and radiation would kill her. A highly recognized doctor from UW agreed. Comparatively? You just aren't that big of a fish in that large of a pond. I can give you all kinds of medical websites that are curing cancer without chemo or radiation. Your opinion just to be contentious? Noted, as it is over the aging of trees where counting rings at times, doesn't work. Do better or I'm done with this chat. I want to say 'please' but wonder if such already lowers the expectation that asking for an adult conversation should already be the expectation.