I cannot explain those things since I’m not exactly sure what needs explaining. I have seen tree trunks standing in a flooded swamp...sometimes the trees can be 100s of years old (unless you dispute dendrochronology), and perhaps, under rare conditions, subject to subsidance and burial by a series of sedimentary deposits. It certainly isn’t common, nor are coelecanths (possibly a few hundred left) or wolemi pines (100 in the wild, but you can buy the seeds on-line). What is your point? Many islands and isolated ecosystems harbor rare endemic species. Sometimes isolated rare populations survive for a long, long time. Sort of like anachronist young earth creationists clinging to survival in the world of modern science.
And I mean real science, not phony degrees from mail-order bible colleges, like those brandished by (most of) your experts.
For your part, you have a lot of explaining to do, if you think the earth is only 6500 years old: a sedimentary column two miles thick, all neatly sorted in a matter of forty days on the crystaline granite crust, which somehow disappated all the heat from its transition from a molten state, all in a matter of a few years, basking in the light of seemingly distant stars and galaxies.
You, Sir, make me sad, as there will be no disuading you of your folly. A matter of pride, I expect. Which is a sin, perhaps the original sin.
By the way, why do young earth creationists always waffle about the age of the earth, giving some range between 6000 and 10000 years. What is wrong with Bishop Usher’s calculation? If your chronology is so damned accurate, you should be able to give a specific year for creation, and for the flood of Noah/Uttnapushtim. This would have an interesting consequence; you would haev to become very precise about when all the various independent methods for chronology suddenly become unreliable, i.e. at odds with your interpretation of the biblical account; there is not not very much time between the biblical flood and known dynasties in Egypt.
Oh, what’s the point!
You state “I cannot explain those things...”
The reason I post is b/c at one time I too was trying to fit long ages and some truth to evolution - that was before I began studying the opposition - creation. Both use the same evidence yet reach different conclusions based upon reason and logic. It’s just that one [creation] does not ignore and hide certain evidence nor make absurd assumptions re: age dating techniques [uniformitarianism].
Lumin: “sometimes the trees can be 100s of years old (unless you dispute dendrochronology)”
Well from Walt’s book [2nd link] you need not 100s of years but millions of years and I don’t know of any tree that can survive millions of years while being slowly buried over eons in sediment. I do dispute carbon-dating, radio-isotopes, astronomical dating, and EVEN GASP dendrochronology when mis-interpreted w/ uniformity assumptions. My 1st link showed there are not any 100% accurate natural clocks AND most all do support a young earth rather than support even 1 million years. Heck if you have any integrity you’ll study both sides of the argument. Why even Einstein showed time is relative in relation to the strength of gravitational fields - calling into question long astronomical dates.
Lumin: “coelecanths...or wolemi pines... What is your point?”
Only that evolution dates these fossils at 65-100’s of millions of years old yet we have living copies w/ no intermediaries in the sedimentary record. Let’s see, the dinosaurs are dated at these same ages yet evolution can not adequately explain surviving soft tissue in a dinosaur femur bone [see my links page for more].
Lumin: “And I mean real science, not phony degrees from mail-order bible colleges, like those brandished by (most of) your experts.”
You would be hard-pressed to show me any mail-order degrees for these scientists in the link below who all support creation over evolution.
Dr. Walt Brown is a Ph.D. from MIT. for crying out loud.
Testimonies of Scientist who Believe the Bible:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts
Lumin: “For your part, you have a lot of explaining to do” -That’s why I provide these links b/c they explain far more than I could begin to explain. Oh and it’s not just ‘40 days’ to lay down 2 miles of sediment but that’s in Walt’s book too. The heating you presume is dissipated by sub-terranean water pressurized and heated reaching super critical stage before a fissure erupts circum-navigating the globe [mid-oceanic trench] and an ice-age that followed the flood waters. These flood waters stayed upon the whole earth for 1 year covering even the highest mountain ranges by at least 18 feet. Here’s a hint the pre-flood mountains were no more than 1 mile high - see hydroplate theory in part II of Dr. Brown’s book.
Lumin:”all neatly sorted in a matter of forty days “
40 days is only the amount of time the fountains of the great deep were opened and rained down havoc on the whole earth and in all probability introduced the earth to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Lumin: “You, Sir, make me sad, as there will be no disuading you of your folly. A matter of pride, I expect. Which is a sin, perhaps the original sin.”
Right back at ya - only what makes me sad is how many think it’s junk science without any real research - just accept the consensus of pride-filled scientists whose work is mostly filtered through the lens of the main stream media - the same ones who brought you global cooling in the 1970’s before global warming 20 or so years later and now followed by ‘climate change.’ Here’s another hint: If you want to encourage scientific cheating and corruption have the government grant ‘experts’ research money, then have the experts ‘peer-review’ each other, and let the media promote or hide whatever conclusions tickle ther fancy - ALL to reach the height of ridiculous conclusions that are all too often juxtaposed one against another.
Lumin: “By the way, why do young earth creationists always waffle about the age of the earth, giving some range between 6000 and 10000 years.” Did I waffle? Any science [incl evolution] involving history is not hard science as it is NOT repeatable. BTW tis a good thing that evos never waffle on their dates ehh?
Oh and one more thing - where in the scientific method are we allowed to ignore, hide or cover-up any evidence not in conformity w/ a scientific theory? Evolutions does this constantly and has had more fraud exposed than all the other fields of science combined. ‘Me thinks you doth protest too much.’
Really if you will not read for yourself then...
“Oh, what’s the point!”