Thanks, SoSick for the research you put into this.
If what you are trying to say is that someone somewhere claims they have found samples of oak that is 10,000+ years old i think you must be being brainwashed.
That is one way you can deal with the cognitive dissonance of having to deal with the evidence. Of course you are rejecting the evidence of reality when you do so.
cut wood simply doesn't last that long, unless of course they've been keeping it in some sort hermetically sealed chamber, which is highly unlikely. Humidity, drying, expansion, contraction, acid ph, termites, carpenter ants, most furniture falls apart after a dozen decades at most. Houses about the same. Great huge unhewn trees turn to mulch in much less time. Castles built of stone get rather decrepit after several hundred years. The big oak beams wither away, crack and split and the big old castle caves in upon itself. Unless there are numerous workers constantly refurbishing them.
Unfortunately for you, nature is not confined by what you believe, for it is not simply a matter of age, but environment.
There are actually millions of examples of wood and other organic debris that were preserved in sites that prevented rot and decay, a typical one is being submerged in peat bogs where the acid and lack of oxygen prevent microbes from breaking down cellulose. For example there are over a thousand
peat bog mummies that have been found where human bodies have been preserved for hundreds of years:
Although the bog mummies were buried below the surface, immersed in the bog water, their remains did not decay. Why? First, the bog-watery environment does not permit the growth of bacteria that will help decay flesh. Second, the bog water contains certain acids that act to tan the skin (much the same way as cowhide is tanned to produce leather). If the natural bacteria action is prevented and the skin is tanned, the conditions are right for producing a mummy
Wood of course doesn't need to be tanned and naturally lasts longer than bodies.
We also see petrified wood, which lasted long enough for the slow chemical reactions to replace molecules of wood with those of minerals - something that does not occur with decay. This evidence shows that decay does not always occur, and it also tells us what conditions are needed for the prevention of decay. Those conditions match those where the oak samples were found.
Once samples are buried where decay does not occur, and thus
cannot decay, they will be preserved until those conditions change. Once we know what the conditions are that preserve samples like this we can look for more, in order to piece together the evidence of the natural history of the world.
Personally, I'd trash the idea as nonsense. Oak posts were not being used to build villages or whatever in Europe 4000 years before the Sumerian (most likely) invented the wheel, 4000 years before the Sumerians built cities of brick and used palm tree posts for roofing.
Again, the world is not limited by what you believe or what your opinion is, as the evidence of the first agricultural villages are that they date to 10,000 BCE and that humans had been building structures long before that.
But we are not talking about wood used to make buildings ...
... we are talking about wood preserved in bogs and the bottoms of anaerobic lakes where decay was prevented by lack of oxygen and acidic water. Wood in two different locations (Ireland and Germany) where there are enough samples of a species of oak that a dendrochronology can be constructed by matching the growth rings in the samples.
I think your quest for finding evidence to support your theories of evilution has left you more than just a little bit insane. God himself is much easier find. It's a much more rewarding quest also.
Of course this is just another way of dealing with cognitive dissonance - the evidence that contradicts your belief must be false and the people that deal with it must be insane - because the alternative is admitting to yourself that you are wrong.
My god is not there to comfort me, to make it easy for me, or coddle me in fantasy, but to show me the reality of the objective world - the created world. The message of evidence like this is multifaceted and repeated in many different ways and forms, and it all leads to one rational and logical conclusion: that the earth is old, very old, and that anyone that thinks otherwise is not understanding reality.
But we also have other evidence from these trees as well, evidence that shows that they cannot be misplaced younger trees in the dendrochronology. It is part of the correlations.
Denial of the evidence of reality is not faith, it is delusion.
Enjoy.
ps - you owe LindaLou an apology - she got the facts right (easy to do with a little research and a
willingness to look for truth), and all you have are the logical fallacy arguments from incredulity and ignorance (and a hangover). And btw - just for form sake - your statements:
message 248378Pay attention... here you ask the question and propose a solution..
and here you answer your own question and negate your proposed solution:
Only hold if reason and sanity are mutually exclusive of any belief in god. If this is really your position, then I guess we know where you stand.
message 248387checkmate btw.
pretty tight corner you locked yourself into there. you have to reinvent yourself after that one.
Except that you haven't even found the chessboard yet, and your supposed corner has so many holes in it that you can see reality (if you look). You need to look at all the possibilities SoSick, if you are interested in reason and sanity anyway.
[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
