The plants that JW's love to hate

by Mindchild 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mindchild

  Most people who have any sustained contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses soon discover that this organization is rather tough on certain types of plants. It is easy to see that small forests have been sacrificed over the decades to make the multiple millions of publications for the evangelical work or that many plants that are commonly used for personal drug use are condemned, but most people don’t know about a few lonely plants growing somewhere in California that really irk the Witnesses. These plants have a very interesting story to tell. It is precisely their message and existence that causes the Watchtower Society to hate them and try to hide the news about them as much as possible. Why the displeasure then with these plants? These plants prove that the numerical dating methods used in the Witness ideology are completely impossible and further show one of the most fundamental beliefs they have about the Bible is flawed and is nothing but a lie.

  The Creosote bush
  

  In California’s Mojave Desert, there is a shrub that is called the Creosote-bush (Larrea tridentata in the family Zygophyllaceae) In Spanish the bush is called hediondilla, “little stinker,” because of its rather offensive smell after a rain. Besides this phenomenon, the creosote bush is rather famous for something else. The plant fragments as it ages and produces daughter plants that are clones of the parent. The clones form rings that always expand in diameter from the once ancestral shrub that grew in the center of the ring.

  Botanists have discovered that the clones form rings that grow at the rate of only about one meter for every 500 years. Over thousands of years, the center wood dies and rots and leaves a barren area because the leaves of the bush poison the ground making it impossible for any other plant to grow there. When researchers began measuring the rings, they discovered that these plants were very old, with some rings being about 50 feet in diameter. Further testing found one old bush the named “King Clone” that is nearly 12,000 years old.

  These circles of shrubs are among the oldest living plants, and predate civilzation. They were here before the Pyrmids were built, before written language was invented but the most interesting thing is that their existence means a global flood is impossible.

  The creosote bush can survive up to two years without rain as it’s leaves are coated with a varnish type resin that reduces its water loss from the desert heat. It is not possible however for these plants to survive submerged in water for any extended period of time and to further remain true to their circular history. They need a dry climate to exist in. If there was the infamous global flood that caused the waters to remain hanging around for about a year, it would be impossible for any cresote bushes to be here…at least for the last several thousand years.

  If this wasn’t bad enough for those who exposuse the flood fabel as being literal, botanists in Australia discovered the world’s oldest living plant in the Tasmainan wildereness that is estimated to be 43,000 years old. Don’t forget either you Watchtower guys about the 13,000 year old huckleberry growing elsewhere in the United States.

  All these plants and much more solid geological evidence shows no global flood happened in 2370 BC or anywhere near then. The existence of the flood is crucial to the JW’s because of the chronological fabels they consider gospel, going back to the Garden of Eden. All these plants are calling out to them, “Lairs Lairs” and shaking their leaves at them!

  Skipper
• 

  CornerStone

  Hello Mindchild,

  I find your post very interesting. If one is into finding out the "truth" about a particular subject then it takes the type of hard work and research I've seen you demostrate in this and other post. Good work!

  I am, however, puzzled about a statement you made in this recent post.
  You said;

  "All these plants and much more solid geological evidence shows no global flood happened in 2370 BC or anywhere near then."

  You see, it struck me as odd that based on the plants you have described you are holding it up as a "proof" that a global flood did not happen, other "solid geological evidence" notwithstanding.

  Now, personaly, I take the Bible account of a global flood as a matter of faith. And, admittantly, there may not be enough "evidence" that a global flood did not happen that could convince me otherwise.

  With that said, such "evidence" needs to be, at the least, reasonable.
  Even the faithful must conceed to the Copernicus and Galileo type of evidence, if the faithful are to remain faithful to the ideals of truth, no matter how unsettling.

  What I like to know is; Did you use your plant research and try to think of how the Creosote bush COULD have servived a year long global flood?

  I ask because of my admitted convictions but also because i realy DO believe the truth is of extreem importance,( which is why I'm such a terible lier )

  My concerns were:
  1) Could the bush have servived on a small flotilla of wood, dirt, and other plants for a year?

  2) Could their have been more than one flotilla?

  3) Could very productive years have accellerated the growth and very cold years retard the growth?

  4) Could the plant have adappted from a wet enviornment to a dry one over thousandands of years?

  5) Are you willing to BELIEVE that these possibilities might be accurate.

  Now, I'm no botanist. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, that's why I ask a lot of "stupid" questions, which is what got me into trouble with the borg "elder" drones. I believe, however, that "truth" MUST withstand ANY scrutiny, if it is to remain "truth". This is why I'm questioning the info you have submitted. I do this with a desire to come to a more complete understanding of the subject provided.

  I respect your conclusions and enjoy your post.

  CornerStone
• 

  patio34

  Hi Mindchild,

  Thanks for that interesting article on the creosote plant, and the photo too. It does seem very damning for the flood story. As you said, it is only one of a 'flood' of proofs that the Noachin flood didn't occur as stated.

  One thing that always stuck out in my mind was the existence of flood myths in Sumerian writings that existed long before the Hebrews' writings.

  Carry on!
  Pat
• 

  Judith

  Interesting. Staying tuned in for more info.
• 

  GentlyFeral

  I want to know about the ancient huckleberry, please.

  GentlyFeral
• 

  Farkel

  Cornerstone,

  : You see, it struck me as odd that based on the plants you have described you are holding it up as a "proof" that a global flood did not happen, other "solid geological evidence" notwithstanding.

  It's not odd at all. There is virtually NO "solid geological evidence" that a global flood occurred. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nill.

  You've been either influenced by WTS writers who quote from fundy sources, or fundy sources, or both. All of that so-called "geological evidence" has been thoroughly debunked.

  But fundies dust off that debunked crap, put a fresh coat of paint on it and recycle it. P.T. Barnum was right and they know it.

  Just the logical evidence for what it would take for an "ark" to hold and sustain the necessary lifeforms for nearly a year is alone enough evidence to refute the global flood myth. Furthermore, the geological evidence totally trashes that belief.

  Don't believe me? Read this: http://geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm

  Look under Alan Feuerbacher essays on this site for the topic The Flood.

  That should keep you busy for a while!

  Farkel

  "I didn't mean what I meant."
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Now, look here Mindchild. If dinosaurs could be accommodated on the Ark (remember Jason?), then I'm sure these creosote bushes could find some way to survive.

  Hmmmm.....perhaps several of them were eaten by the dinosaurs, and the seeds retained in dinosaur dung until after the ark landed. Getting the seeds to California would be no problem.....um.....they could have been carried there by post-Flood dung beetles (they were very good flyers back then, I'm sure). The dinosaur dung would have prevented the seeds from germinating right at that spot, so the dung beetles (under Divine command) would have deposited them 50 feet out from the dung pile in a circular ring, thereby creating a "false age spot" so to speak. Yeah, that's it.
• 

  Mindchild

  Hi CornerStone,

  Thank you for making your comments in a reasonable and tactful way. Let me see if I can reply in kind.

  Your point of the plants themselves not providing proof that the global flood NEVER took place is understood. That would be a reasonable conclusion based on this evidence alone. As obviously it does not preclude such events from happening prior to the age of the particular plants. The only conclusion that might be tenable is that the dating methods used by the JW's are incorrect in light of the physical evidence of this.

  Let's take your reasoning on the second set of questions at face value. Let's expierment with the hypothesis that a global flood did happen within the lifetime of these plants, namely about 4500-5000 years ago. This time period would put such an event well within the lifetime of these plants. We know that seeds from plants are very tough, and can survive immersion in water, high temperatures, freezing cold...just about anything that happens in the climate.

  If we were looking at the effects of such a flood, we could expect then that the seeds might be widely distributed around the world and that the creosote plant might be found in any desert area, the same for the other long-lived species. However, there is no evidence of this. So, that is one point against this idea.

  The second line of investigation would involve in the ringed structure of the creosote plants and the effects of a flood. This would again destroy the living plants but perhaps not the seeds. We however wouldn't expect to find the ring structures in place after such a long and traumatic event, but it would be more random. As these plants are well known for their medicinal and other uses for centuries, we know that they grow very slowly. We can also test the soil for the poision the plants produce that kills anything else.

  While other plants are older, it is the historical structure of their growth that lends evidence to the climatic stablilty. If it were just one plant in existence in CA, then maybe it would be up for grabs and other potential explanations might have some favor but there are many plants, all with identical circular growth patterns.

  You can also look at the work of Darwin on a similar problem with a "recent" global flood. Darwin showed an amazing amount of species evolution in remote places, like the Galopogis Islands owned by Ecuador. You will find species adaptations here that you will find nowhere else. There simply is not enough time for an evolutionary adaptation in such small time spans. Hundreds of thousands of years, yes but not thousands.

  The geophysical evidence for there not being a flood in recent human history is enormous. It ranges from paleomagnetic records (the magneitic field intensity and direction of rocks) which would show an enormous change from such an event, to the mass eruption of super volcanos that would result from the weight of the water crushing down on Earth's surface. Scientists can look back through geological records because of the nature of rocks and their formation properties and see the effects of local floods and so forth. None of this matches the ideological perspective of a flood in 10,000 years or even 100,000 years. To be sure there were no doubt major events from comet impacts, supervolcano's errupting (10,000 times as powerful as the blast at Mt. St. Helens in WA) and we can see their signatures in the geological record but not a trace of a global flood.

  I hope that helps you to understand my reasoning but of course this is my own conclusion based upon my own use of truth telling tools that I accept. They may not be right for you but thank you for your input.

  Skipper
• 

  Mindchild

  For my old friend GentlyFeral (EPG), some information about Huckleberry Finn...er the Huckleberry plant as requested.

  . http://www.research.utas.edu.au/1998/clone.htm

  Botanical history was made in 1998, when a team of scientists from the School of Plant Science at the University of Tasmania, and the Department of Environment and Land Management in Tasmania (Jasmyn Lynch, Jayne Balmer, Dr Greg Jordan, Dr Jocelyne Cambecedes, Richard Barnes and Dr René Vaillancourt) made botanical history when they identified the oldest living plant individual known to date.

  Lomatia tasmanica (common name King's Holly), a member of the Proteaceae family, is known by only one population that grows along creek gullies in remnant rainforest in the World Heritage area of Southwest Tasmania.

  Isozyme analysis has revealed that it possesses zero genetic diversity (that is, all living plants of the species are exactly the same), whereas a closely related species, Lomatia tinctoria, which also propagates vegetatively, has a normal level of genetic diversity. Lomatia tasmanica has a triploid chromosome number which explains why it appears to be sterile - it flowers but never forms mature fruits - and shows little morphological variability. This accumulated evidence strongly suggests that the entire species is a single clone that propagates vegetatively.

  The L. tasmanica clone spans 1.2 km which makes it the second longest plant in the world after the box-huckleberry clone in Pennsylvania which is reported to be 2 km in length.

  Prior to the Tasmanian discovery, the oldest reported plant clone was the box-huckleberry at 13,000 years, while the oldest living tree is believed to be a bristlecone pine in Arizona which has been dated at 4,700 years.

  The size of the clone, and the observation that vegetative propagation is likely to be very slow in the cold climate of Southwest Tasmania suggests that L. tasmanica is also extremely old. Fortunately, its longevity can be substantiated. Fossil leaf fragments genetically identical to the living L. tasmanica were found in a fossil deposit 8.5 km from the extant population and are presumed to represent the same clone. Radio-carbon dating has established the age of the fossils at 43,600 years, so it appears that genetics and paleobotany have collaborated to establish that Lomatia tasmanica is the oldest living plant individual known to date
• 

  Andee

  In Spanish the bush is called hediondilla, “little stinker,” because of its rather offensive smell after a rain.

  What??? Skipper! How dare you attempt to sully the aromatic reputation of our beloved Creosote bush!

  Everyone I know loves the smell of Creosote, after a nice rainstorm.

  Then again, we all like it when it's 110 degrees outside too.

  Andee