I ran across this article on another forum:
Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology, by Frank Lorey, M.A.
And there is something there that applies to this topic:
quote:
... The actual date may be adjusted for extremely wet years which occurred in the past, as shown by the numerous dry lakes in the desert regions of eastern California and Nevada. Experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons. [6] Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods. [12] These varied conditions could allow a slightly more recent date which may even closely match Ussher's date of 2350 B.C.
Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier. [6][7] This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable. The same argument for multiple ring growth in wet years could hold, and even the possible pre-flood greenhouse environment that may have existed on earth may have been a factor. Also, creation had to involve some superficial appearance of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place. Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today. Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory."
There is a LOT of erroneous information, misinformation and false implications in the article, however I want to focus on just one aspect of it.
Reference [6] is
quote:
[6] Aardsma, Dr. Gerald E., "Tree-Rings Dating and Multiple Growth Ring Per Year." Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 29, March 1993, pp. 184-189.
And this is NOT available on-line to compare what it says to what is claimed here. The abstract, however says:
quote:
There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.
(color for emPHAsis)
Rather the opposite of what is claimed in the above article eh?
So one "method" is to misrepresent what is said in other articles -- even when produced and published by the same organisation!
Reference [12] is
quote:
[12] Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.
And ALSO not available on-line. The Abstract for that document is:
quote:
Various treatments were given to 8-month-old bristle-cone pine seedlings; and it was found that supplementing the winter day length with a 250-watt heat lamp in order to give a total of 16 hours of illumination proved most effective. The lamp was placed about three feet above the seedlings, and the temperature in the growth chamber was kept at about 70'F. Those which received a short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control seedlings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring. The bearing of this on the estimates of the age of the bristle-cone pine forest is discussed. Under the San Francisco type of both spring and fall rainfall with a relatively dry perod in the summer the young forests on the White Mountains would have grown an extra ring per year quite often. Accordingly it is believed that the presumed 7100 year age postulated for these trees by Ferguson would be reduced to about 5600 years, on the assumption that extra rings would be formed by stress during about 50% of the years between the end of the Flood and about 1200 A.D.
In other words they create artificial conditions in a lab -- one where they (and anyone could) create extra growth rings by simulating shorter seasons -- and then state that those conditions applied in reality by superimposing coastal San Fransico type weather to the top of the Sierra Nevadas without any - repeat any - evidence that this occurred or COULD have occurred.
So another "creationist method" is to make stuff up, fail to ground truth it against reality and then pretend that this is the truth. This isn't a different interpretation of evidence but intentional ignorance of it.
A third "creationist method" in evidence here is using references to material that is not available on-line to non-members so that the references cannot be investigated for similar (mis)behavior.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : finished post
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
