Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 76 of 224 (705806)
09-02-2013 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by JonF
09-02-2013 8:36 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
A few calibrations against historical dates have been done. Almost all of carbon dating's calibration is done against other methods of dating the same samples, notably dendrochronology, varves, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms, δ[sup]18[/sup]O in ice cores. These other methods are all consilient; they give the same results to within a small margin of error. If you want to claim that varves aren't annual, you need to explain why dendrochronology and U-Th dating and δ[sup]18[/sup]O agree with it. And the same for all the methods. Given the consilience the simplest explanation is that the dating methods are all measuring the same thing, real time elapsed.
If you want to proffer another explanation, you must explain the consilience.
As for the data, you can have as much as you want from Radiocarbon vol 51 no 4 and IntCal09 Supplemental Data.
You should also look at Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1996 Progress Report
I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates. Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology. Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact.
The consilience is simply cherry picking. Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis. This would an understandable approach, but unfortunately is not very scientific.
And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 8:36 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:49 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 83 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 6:01 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 77 of 224 (705807)
09-02-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 9:07 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Hi Mindspawn,
Your arguments are all almost self-evidently wrong, and one of them makes no sense whatsoever. They require only the barest amount of evidence to rebut, and much of that evidence has already been presented in this thread, leading me to wonder whether there's a problem in understanding, or if maybe you're just trying to waste as many people's time as possible.
Summarizing your arguments, the historical dates could have been incorrect, the dating methods chosen for calibration could have been cherry picked, the varve layers could have been deposited 12 times a year instead of once, and mistakes could have been made in dendrochronology.
Do you have evidence that any of these coulda-woulda-shoulda's have ever happened? Any evidence of incorrect historical dates? Any evidence of dating methods being cherry picked? Any evidence of varve layer deposition 12 times in a single year ever? Any evidence of mistakes in dencrochronology?
Since to you these incredibly poor arguments must have seemed cogent and effective, and since you made them in the face of sufficient evidence showing them wrong, it seems a pretty sure bet you don't comprehend the information you've been provided. There's not much point explaining evidence to someone who thinks "You could be wrong" is legitimate rebuttal. You, too, could be wrong. Everyone could be wrong. That's what evidence is for, to tell the difference between who's right and who's wrong, but you don't seem to understand that.
Anyway, against my best instincts I'm going to address you're "arguments", which I'll paraphrase.
  • "Carbon dating has been correlated against some recent incorrect historical dates."
    Tell us which recent historical dates are incorrect and the evidence that they're incorrect. Even better, tell us how such a thing could ever happen to any significant degree for anything recent.
    AbE: I later realized that you must have been referring to Rohl's revised chronology. For you ancient Egypt is halfway back to the dawn of time, so I didn't expect you to refer to historical dates from ancient Egypt as "recent". The differences between Rohl and more generally accepted dates is relatively small, and carbon dating calibration was never done with historical dates from ancient Egypt anyway.
  • "If recent historical dates are wrong then older radiocarbon dates could be exponentially wrong."
    The error would be proportional, not exponential.
  • "The other dating methods were cherry picked. Only those in agreement with radiocarbon dating were used for correlation and calibration."
    The dating methods with which radiocarbon dating agrees are dendrochronology, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits). Which dating methods were conveniently left out?
    Radiocarbon dating has also been correlated with known historical dates and events, such as the fall of Masada or volcanic eruptions.
  • "Lake varves are laid down twelve times a year in the past."
    Each varve layer contains seasonal debris, seeds and pollen. It is analysis of this type of data that allowed the varves of Lake Suigetsu (because many layers cannot be visually delineated) to be properly interpreted. If twelve varve layers were ever laid down in a single year due to spring tides they would be interpreted as twelve layers in a single year, not as twelve years.
    Such a huge discrepancy as 12.2x would be easily amenable to radiocarbon analysis, even if it were anywhere near as uncalibrated as you claim. Take two layers that are separated by a thousand layers and date each. We know the decay rate of 14C, and it would be simple to establish that the thousand layers did not represent 1000/12.2 or 82 years, but roughly a thousand years. And you can repeat this experiment for each group of 1000 layers back 50,000 years and find that each 1000 layer grouping corresponds to a thousand years.
    Even if you can claim we've got the decay rate of 14C wrong for dating purposes by a factor of 2 (a ridiculously large and impossible error), that's still 500 years, not 82 years. In other words, your claim isn't even self consistent.
    By the way, since there's a spring tide roughly every two weeks, there are around 26 spring tides every year, not 12.2. Where'd you get this crazy spring tide argument for Lake Suigetsu, I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. Did you make this one up yourself?
    Also, the elevation of Lake Suigetsu's surface above sea level is 54 meters, and the average depth is 34 meters. It's an irregularly shaped lake whose shoreline approaches the ocean no closer than a half mile, but whose furtheset extent is 4 or 5 miles from the ocean. How is it, exactly, that you imagine salinity from spring tides influencing Lake Suigetsu varve layers?
    The varve layers were taken by drilling "into the mud at the center of Lake Suigetsu" (A New Radiocarbon Yardstick from Japan), so just pick a random point in Lake Suigetsu around 3 miles from the ocean and explain to us how salinity from the ocean is going to encroach 3 miles inland and rise 20 meters and form a varve layer, especially one that doesn't give away its salty origin with elevated salinity content.
  • "No one's constructed a convincing argument that dendrochronology is accurate."
    Convincing arguments for the accuracy of dendrochronology supported by copious evidence have been made here at EvC Forum many times and appear at many places on the Internet, including some very accessible webpages like Wikipedia (Dendrochronology). If you have a specific objection then raise it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Correct the value of the distance above sea level of the average depth of Lake Suigetsu, 34 => 20.
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 78 of 224 (705810)
09-02-2013 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
mindspawn writes:
Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual?
I can understand the reluctance to research arguments you mistrust, but you must take at least some of the initiative. If we have to spoonfeed you data that you continually question with "but it could be wrong" forcing us to present even yet more detailed data, at some point you're going to begin questioning whether the ship's cook might have snuck down to varve storage and contaminated them.
Varve layers contain characteristic seasonal data from debris, seeds and pollen. Multiple layers laid down in a single year would not go undetected. If it somehow did go undetected then scads of extra layers per year would be violently in disagreement with radiocarbon dating and other forms of dating and would be detected in that way.
These silly objections you keep raising tell me you think scientists must spend no time at verifying and cross-correlating their work, or even that they do no work at all and just make it up. But if you enter "varve dating" into Google Scholar you'll get "about 12,900 results". There is decades and decades and decades of research on varve dating.
This is from the Wikipedia article on varves:
Wikipedia writes:
An annual layer can be highly visible because the particles washed into the layer in the spring when there is greater flow strength are much coarser than those deposited later in the year. This forms a pair of layersone coarse and one finefor each annual cycle. Varves form only in fresh or brackish water, because the high levels of salt in normal sea water coagulates the clay into coarse grains. Since the saline waters will leave coarse particles all year, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the individual layers in salt waters.
You see, this information is out there and very accessible. Why don't you avail yourself of some of it, otherwise you might end up telling us again that salinity changes caused by spring tides causes varve layer formation.
Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....??
Uh, no MindSpawn, we can neither see the irony nor understand the argument. It looks like the beginning of a poorly thought out idea that you couldn't think through to an argument based upon actual evidence.
You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves.
Gee, just as I predicted, once again you're telling us about varves being caused by spring tides.
The only place the phrase "daily tidal varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message.
The only place the phrase "spring tide varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message.
The only place the phrase "bi-annual rainfall varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message.
The only place the phrase "annual rainfall varves" appears on the Internet is at EvC Forum. In your message.
You are seriously just making things up.
Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny.
All you've been doing is casting unwarranted aspersions, and mighty weak and dopey ones at that. Scrutinizing would mean actually informing yourself about the research, something you have yet to do.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:39 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 79 of 224 (705812)
09-02-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 9:00 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
mindspawn writes:
The consilience is simply cherry picking.
That's your statement, here's mine: "Mindspawn is simply making this up."
Prove me wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 9:00 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 224 (705817)
09-02-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:31 AM


That's not how calibration is done...
A small error in calibration in recent history (eg 300 year error) can effect the calibration formulas which in turn can effect dates exponentially.
You have this notion that the calibration curves are obtained by comparing C-14 measurements to historical events. While that would explain why you think Rohl's chronology has some effect on calibration, that notion does is disabused by the way calibration is done. Your notion is what we used to call a GCE (gross conceptual error) in nuclear power school. In that setting graders actually deducted more points from your exam than could be gained by getting a question completely correct for making such errors.
As has been explained to you several times, calibration is done using self dating objects like bristlecone pines and varves, and not by assuming that the some historical event actually happened at some exact date.
It is the case that known historical events can be used to check the calibration, but those events are not the basis for calibration. In fact C-14 dating actually raises questions about those assumed dates.
The calibration adjustment for dates sufficient to rule out a 6000 year earth is less than 10% anyway.
How calibration is really done.
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
quote:
In the early years of using the technique, it was not assumed that the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio had been the same over the preceding few thousand years. To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. However, over the next few years significant discrepancies were found, in particular with the chronology of the early Egyptian dynasties: artefact ages derived from radiocarbon testing were several centuries younger than what were thought to be the true ages. The discrepancy was resolved by the study of tree-rings. Comparison of overlapping series of tree-rings allowed the construction of a continuous sequence of tree-ring data that spanned 8,000 years.
Carbon-dating the wood from the tree-rings themselves provided the check needed on the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio: with a sample of known date, and a measurement of the value of N (the number of atoms of 14C remaining in the sample), the carbon-dating equation allows the calculation of N0 (the number of atoms of 14C in the original sample), and hence the original ratio.[24] Armed with the results of carbon-dating the tree rings it became possible to construct calibration curves designed to correct the errors caused by the variation over time in the 14C/12C ratio.
In short Egyptian chronology suggested an error, but was not used to correct calibration.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:31 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 224 (705818)
09-02-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:27 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
If you don't post supporting evidence for radiocarbon dating being calibrated against dendrochronology I will regard your point as unverified. You brought it up to defend carbon dating as accurately calibrated, now kindly post your evidence of the relevance of dendrochronology.
Here is the overview. Look up the rest of it yourself.
Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings Calibration
With all of your "what if" objections you are rapidly becoming a waste of our time, particularly because you have shown that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. As per my signature line, your belief is preventing you from learning.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:27 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 82 of 224 (705819)
09-02-2013 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
quote:
Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual?
I believe that they chose a lake where annual varves occur. Do you have evidence for anything else ?
quote:
Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....??
The real irony is that you were caught bullshitting and you're trying to bullshit your way out of it. There's a huge difference between the researchers using carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating and using other varve systems as independent checks. The actual calibration is against the varve count.
quote:
You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves. You cannot use carbon dating to verify carbon dating, that makes no sense. Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny.
There is a big difference between scrutiny and inventing bullshit. It is your attempts to dismiss the results that fail to withstand scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:39 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 83 of 224 (705828)
09-02-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 9:00 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates.
Wut?
The tree ring dates and the conventional dates agree. (The technical term is "consilience".) That is a verification of both. Are you claiming that Rohl's chronology would have come up with a different date than the conventional one? If so, what would be the significance of the mismatch between dendrochronology and Rohl's chronology? Well, it would mean that Rohl's chronology is wrong. (You've tried to handwave consilience away, but it's still the elephant in the room).
There's also Jerusalem Tunnel Linked to Bible. They used 14C to date a leaf embedded in the plaster (obviously older than the plaster) and U-Th disequilibrium (one of the techniques used to calibrarte 15C) to date a plaster stalagmite (obviously younger than the tunnel) and bracketed the date the tunnel was built.
The consilience is simply cherry picking.
You're awfully sure of yourself. Upon what evidence do you make this determination?
Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology.
Yup, that's what we have.
Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact.
Really? Do tell. Explain. In detail. With citations.
Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis.
As far as anyone can tell, no. And WTF are the "less easily understood sequences"? They're all pretty much the same difficulty.
And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results.
True. But there is no doubt on each study. At least no doubt of significance; each might be off by a percent or two. And there's no evidence of scientists discarding studies of any kind.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 9:00 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 84 of 224 (706007)
09-05-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
09-02-2013 1:24 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 1:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2013 8:19 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 09-05-2013 8:40 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-05-2013 9:21 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2013 9:42 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 09-07-2013 2:08 PM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 85 of 224 (706008)
09-05-2013 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
I don't believe that Admin meant to exempt you from providing evidence to support YOUR claims. I'll accept your refusal to answer as an admission of the truth of what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 86 of 224 (706011)
09-05-2013 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.
The proper way to ignore a post is to not respond to it. I notice that you are ignoring posts that do present arguments backed up by references. There are several posts on this very page tto which you could have responded. But instead you responded to Paul.
And despite what admin says, responses are allowed to use logical argument that is based on evidence or argument already posted. For example, a perfectly legitimate post would contain argument pointing out errors in your own logic.
And given Percy's notes in this thread noting your propensity to make up stuff, I think it much more likely that Admin's warning was to us about you than vice versa.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 87 of 224 (706022)
09-05-2013 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
mindspawn writes:
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.
Gee, that doesn't sound familiar, let me take a look...
Okay, here's what I said in Message 350 over at the Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? thead:
Admin writes:
I have another request: Positions being argued for in the science threads (like this one) should be based upon evidence. You should put forward the evidence that brought you to your position. Positions not based upon evidence should receive no mention. Positions that you believe have evidence but you don't know what that evidence is should also receive no mention. In other words, those with no evidence for what they believe is true should remain on the sidelines.
The reason I made that request was so that claims wouldn't be made up. The relevance to this thread is that we think you're making up your claims, for one example, that spring tides can cause lake varves, which you said was the case with Lake Suigetsu. Do you have any evidence of this? Or for any of the other of your claims that I addressed in Message 77?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 88 of 224 (706025)
09-05-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented.
This is not a lie, but a vast misrepresentation of the truth. Your utter lack of any attempt to debate honestly is truly stunning. Even for a creo.
You want people suspended for pointing out that you have manipulated and misrepresented everything you have presented as "evidence". You should be ashamed of yourself.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:09 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 89 of 224 (706186)
09-07-2013 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Hello?
MindSpawn?
Are you still here?
You probably think we're trying to give you a hard time, but you keep exhibiting a very real and profound error in logic. You apparently believe that, "It is possible that this could have happened," is valid rebuttal. Usually there are many things that might have happened, so we look for evidence of what actually *did* happen. You need evidence of what actually *did* happen.
We figure out what happened by finding positive evidence, not by finding evidence against everything else that might have happened. I don't prove I drove all the way to your house by proving I didn't take a plane, bus or taxi. I prove it by pointing to my car in your driveway. If you're still doubtful then I show you it's not a rent-a-car by showing you my car's registration. Proving that everything else that might have happened didn't happen would be a ridiculous exercise, but that's what you keep asking us to do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:13 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 90 of 224 (706354)
09-09-2013 8:13 PM


Mindspawn keeps ducking, dodging, and weaving
You keep asking for more and more evidence, while denying, obfuscating, or ignoring any evidence we provide.
So, here is some evidence. Let's see if you can deal with it without just trying to hand-wave it away.
Remember, your credibility (what little you have left) depends on the evidence you provide. Just coming up with "what-ifs" is not evidence. Your religious beliefs are not evidence.
====================
Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt
R.M. CLARK & C. RENFREW
Abstract: The historical calendar of Ancient Egypt is the only independent chronology for testing the bristlecone pine calibration of the radiocarbon time scale from 3000 to 1800 BC. Here a statistical approach is used to compare the functions relating the Egyptian historical dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates and the bristlecone pine tree-ring dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates, and it is concluded that the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Egypt do not differ significantly from the historical dates in the time period considered, although the errors associated with these preclude a precise comparison. The accord gives qualified support for both systems and invalidates some published objections to the use of a calibrated time scale in prehistoric archaeology.
Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt | Nature
====================
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? An article abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1.
The concluding paragraph:
Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method
Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocarbon over time. (See How does the radiocarbon dating method work?) Dendrochronology thus provides an essential service to radiocarbon dating, the major method used to date archaeological remains, guaranteeing its accuracy throughout the period of interest to biblical chronology.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?
====================
Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
V. C. LaMarche Jr. & T. P. Harlan
Abstract: An independently developed tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine in the White Mountains, California, provides a basis for testing the accuracy of dendrochronological calibration of the radiocarbon time scale. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings in this species are true annual rings. Internal evidence and cross-chronology comparison indicate that there is no error in calendar dates assigned to wood specimens for comparative radiocarbon analysis, at least back to 3535 B.C.
Just a moment...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024