Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only

Message 80For the simple reason that you can't tell that the creationist book is representing the story correctly without reading the original source. The LUCY book is an easy read, not as dry as articles in journals (the ultimate source for facts on scientific studies). We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree"Methuselah (tree) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located at approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism; the coordinates cited refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.

---

Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.Any Comment so far?{ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE}Enjoy.

Message 81Hmmm... Well if we take it step by step, this debate may be possible. I will see, but right now I have some time so I will start debating, and don't be surprised if it may take me weeks before I reply sometimes because I may be very busy. Here goes...

quote:

---

Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.

​

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.

---

I don't see how come this is supposed to disprove a young earth... I mean, accepted dates for a young earth by most Creationists can be anything from 6 to 10 thousand years, 6 being the best estimate. But if your point is that this age doesn't exactly fit with an estimate for when the Flood was, I still have a rebuttal: Tree ring dating can be misleading under certain conditions, such as when there are two or more wet seasons in a year, the tree will develop extra growth rings and thus appear older than it actually is.Peace.

Message 82That is not a problem. I too may be unable to reply at times. Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice. It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.Enjoy.

Message 83

quote:

---

Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice.

---

Yes, here is a good example: "Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced" Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.

---

You didn't get it, but I assume that you use this "proof" because it supposedly outdates the Flood.

Message 84No, I realize that this date is not that controversial for YEC position. All it is is a foundation for later evidence. Yes, a good example typical of creatortionista misrepresentations, misleading statements and false conclusions. I'll explain in a bit, but first I want to add the second piece, as it basically duplicates the first and is part of the refutation of Dr. Batten's article.Prometheus (tree) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Prometheus (aka WPN-114) is the nickname given to the oldest non-clonal organism ever known, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree about 4900 years old growing at treeline on a mountain in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was cut down on August 6, 1964 by a graduate student and U.S. Forest Service personnel for research purposes, though at the time they did not know of its world-record age. The cutting of the tree remains controversial.

---

Fachbereich Biologie : Universität Hamburg

quote:

---

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6). Naturally, these ages underestimate the true ages of the respective trees (see Tree Age Determination for details), perhaps by hundreds of years in view of the fact that pith dates were not recovered for these trees. It seems likely that trees at least 5000 years old exist.

---

With an age of 4,789 years in 1964 when the tree was cut down this means that "Prometheus" or WPM-114 has an estimatd germination date of 2,880 BCE, just a little bit older than "Methusula." This is substantiating evidence of this age, and we will get to this below in greater detail.Now we come to Don Batten's article, which is also available at:http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441This is a review I have written of that article (I have shortened it here to provide the highlights - the full article is available at Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud):

quote:

---

Dendrochronology is the study of time and climate through the evidence of tree-rings and related data. There are several thousand dendrochronologies currently being used and expanded in the world, some of these are "floating" chronologies (where the end dates are not know) and some are absolute. At first blush one would not think that young earth creationists (YEC) would have a problem with something that doesn't measure ages in the billions of years.

​

However the YEC problem is that the chronological age of several tree-ring dendrochronologies are older than their model for the age of the earth. Two continuous absolute dendrochronologies make the concept of a world wide flood invalid for any time in the last 8,000 years.
Don Batten wrote "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" attempting to discredit the whole field of dendrochronology in order to maintain a delusion in a young earth, and in that article he says:

​

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 (9)

​

quote:

---

Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

​

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

​

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

​

The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi¹ recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be "incorrect" (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 "age"). So the carbon "date" is used to constrain just which match is acceptable.

​

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. ... Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.

---

​

He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas, that confirm the information from these two trees: dendrochronologies are built from many overlapping specimens, not from single trees.

​

Notice two things: first is the intentional mis-direction to a completely different species that grows in a different environment (with the implication that they are the same - the hallmark of a scam and a con), and second is that he knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled. We'll look at both these issues in greater detail:

​

Misdirection and Misinformation

​

The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud. The genus Pinus - which includes all pine trees - includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.

​

Now let's look into his claim of using a "similar" species. First the Monterey Pine:

​

http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html (10)

​

quote:

---

The currently accepted scientific name of Monterey pine is Pinus radiata D. Don [12,31,32,33,43]. There are three recognized varieties [10,38]:

Pinus radiata var. radiata
Pinus radiata var. binata Lemmon
Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis (Howell) Axelrod.

Monterey pine hybridizes with knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) and bishop pine (Pinus muricata) [12,32,25].
The typical variety of Monterey pine occurs along the coast of California in three disjunct populations in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Monterey County, and San Luis Obispo County. Pinus radiata var. binata occurs on Guadalupe Island, Mexico [12,32,33,35,42]. Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis is found on Cedros Island, Mexico [10,12,38].
Monterey pine is part of the coastal closed-cone coniferous woodland [23].

---

​

See an image of the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata (3).

​

quote:

---

Leaf: Evergreen needles, 4 to 6 inches long, 3 per fascicle, slender; shiny green; persist 3 years

---

​

The Bristlecone Pine chronology does not rely on just one species, but uses two closely related species for a cross-reference:

​

Bristlecone Growth (14)

​

quote:

---

On dry windswept mountaintops of the Great Basin in the western United States grow earth's oldest living inhabitants, the bristlecones (Pinus longaeva, Pinus aristata). Many of the trees living today were seedlings when the pyramids were being constructed, mature in the time of Christ, and ancient patriarchs today. Bristlecones occur in only six western states, but of these the oldest are found at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California.

​

The bristlecone has adjusted to places on earth that no other tree wants to inhabit, and in these harsh environments, has flourished, free of competition.

​

Until 1970 bristlecones were regarded as a single species. D.K. Bailey, an amateur botanist, demonstrated that the western most trees differ enough in structure of their needles and cones from the bristlecones of the eastern region, to warrant a new species name, Pinus longaeva.

​

Bristlecones don't grow very tall, 60 ft. (18.3m) at the most, but usually much less. Girth of the largest one, the Patriarch is 36' 8" (11.2m), and this tree is relatively young at 1,500 years. The average age is about 1,000 years with only a few over 4,000 years. The oldest trees grow on outcrops of dolomitean alkaline calcareous substrate of low nutrient but of higher moisture content than the surrounding sandstone. The dolomite can reflect more sunlight than other rocks, co ntributing to cooler root zones, and saving moisture.

​

Spring comes to the bristlecone pines in early May with the melting of snow and higher temperatures. Each year the tree increases in girth only 1/100th of an inch, often less, and new cones andtwigs are formed. In this subalpine zone there are only three warm summer months, often only 6 weeks, to produce growth and reserves for overwintering. All of this must be accomplished on a mere 10" (25.4cm) precipitation.

---

​

Description of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone Pine:

​

http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html (11)

​

quote:

---

Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine, Great Basin bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), and foxtail pine (P. balfouriana) share a common ancestor [114,149]. Taxa within the bristlecone-foxtail pine complex (Pinus, subgenus Strobus, section Parrya Mayr, subsection Balfourianae Englm.) are distinguished by growth form, bark, and differences in chemical composition [8,31,90,97]. Bristlecone and foxtail pines readily produce fertile hybrids in the laboratory [128,149]. Disjunct distributions, and possibly other factors, prevent natural hybridization among the 3 species.

​

Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine occurs in upper montane and subalpine communities [146]. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) associate with Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine throughout most of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range. Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine tends to exclude Engelmann spruce and limber pine on upper subalpine and timberline sites. Even in lower subalpine sites, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine is more common in mesic areas than limber pine [104]. Brunstein [22] noted limber pine was absent from Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities on the east slope of the Park Range of Colorado. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) may co-occur throughout Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range on seral sites including burns. Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) also occurs on new burns and other disturbed sites in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities [70,104].

---

​

See an image of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata (1).

​

quote:

---

Leaf: Evergreen needles, short (1 to 1 1/2 inches long), curved, fascicles of 5, dark green but usually covered with white dots of dried resin. Remain on tree for 10-17 years, giving a bushy appearance that resembles a fox's tail.

---

​

Description of the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine:

​

http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html (12)

​

quote:

---

Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs in a relatively narrow latitudinal range in California, Nevada, and Utah [86,94]. In California it occurs on the summits of the Panamint, Inyo, and White mountains of Mono and Inyo counties [53]. In Nevada it has scattered occurrences on high mountain ranges from the White Mountains in Esmeralda County; north to the southern Ruby Mountains of south-central Elko County; south to the Spring Mountains of west-central Clark County; and east to the Ruby Mountains and Snake Range of White Pine County [31,63,94]. In western Utah Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs on the western edge of the Colorado Plateau from the Confusion Range of Millard County; north to the Uinta Mountains of Summit, Wasatch, and Duchesne counties; south to the Pine Valley Mountains of Washington County and northern Kane County; and east to the Wasatch Plateau of Emery County [94,136]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of Great Basin bristlecone and Rocky Mountain pines.

​

The ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 bristlecone pine species for millennia.

---

​

See an image of the Great Basin Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva (14).

​

The two Bristlecone Pine species have been separated for thousands of years, the Monterey Pine has been separated for much longer, especially considering the differences between the needles. What is certain is that he is comparing a very distantly related, coastal species with two high altitude species and saying they are the same - species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}. Perhaps he intentionally chose a species cultivated for rapid growth (for the timber industry), living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment where he can intentionally take samples from trees that are known to frequently have false rings. Certainly Dr. Batten is not telling the truth when he says these species are comparable in the way they grow.

​

Dr. Batten is also not telling the full truth when he mentions the microscope, as that is not the only tool used, either by himself to identify the false rings, or by dendrochronologists that do honest work. He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

​

False Ring Identification

​

That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary. The only way anyone can count the number of false rings that occurred in one year is to have been able to distinguish the false rings from real ones. He does this in the same way that dendrochronologists employ to identify false rings in order to account for them in the data and make the necessary corrections. Nor does he tell you how many times false rings were found during normal growth, what the distribution of error was, or what the average error was, he just reports the maximum rate he was able to find with the implication that amount this is common in all trees all the time. Is this a 1% error or a 10% error in the life of the tree? Dr. Batten is mum on that issue.

​

Nobody has claimed that there are trees that produce no false rings, or no missing rings either - another common problem that makes the trees appear younger than they really are (and which Dr. Batten in all his "honesty" fails to mention). The difference is that dendrochronologists know how to find the evidence of false rings - as does Dr. Batten when he notes "up to five rings per year" of false rings - but they use this information to correct the chronology.

​

Both the species of Bristlecone Pine would not have the same numbers of false rings and missing rings, as they grow in different locations and environments, and yet the chronology that is built from their evidence is consistent from one to the other. Consistent because false rings and missing rings have been accounted for by the honest scientists.

​

So how do the scientists deal with these problems? Here is information from an on-line slide show on dendrochronology - pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation:

​

Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (5)

​

Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.

quote:

---

(Slide 6)Under certain climatic conditions, some species will form intra-annual or false rings . If climatic conditions are unfavorable to growth during the growing season, the tree may mistakenly sense that the end of the season is near, and produce dark, thick-walled latewood cells. Improved conditions will cause the tree to produce lighter, thinner-walled cells once again, until the true end of the season. The resulting annual ring looks like two rings, but when this first ring is closely inspected it can be identified as false because the latewood boundary grades back into the earlywood. False rings occur in a number of species such as the Mexican cypress pictured here. Young ponderosa pines in southeastern Arizona commonly contain false rings as well. In this region, winter and early spring rains provide moisture to trees in the early part of the growing season. By May and June, the driest part of the year, trees have used up the available moisture and, if stressed enough, will begin to produce latewood cells. However, monsoon moisture usually begins to fall in July, and with this moisture, trees will again produce earlywood cells.

​

(Slide 7)Under other climate conditions, trees may produce only a partial ring or may fail to produce a ring at all. This may occur in a year in which conditions for growth are particularly harsh. These rings are called locally absent or missing rings and are commonly found in trees which are extremely sensitive to climate. ... This ring gets pinched between the rings to the left and right of it and is not visible at all in the lower portion of the slide. Very old and/or stressed trees may also produce very small, barely visible rings only a few cells wide which are called micro-rings. Because of the occurrence of false, locally absent, micro, and missing rings, it is especially important to prepare surfaces carefully and use the technique of crossdating to ensure exact calendar year dates for individual rings.

​

(Slide 8)The work of a dendrochronologist starts with the collection of samples in the field. The particular problem being addressed will dictate site and tree selection so that trees sampled are sensitive to the environmental variable of interest. ... Most commonly, tree-ring samples are collected using a hand-held increment borer to remove a small core of wood roughly 5mm in diameter from the trunk of the tree, ideally from bark to pith. ...Usually, two cores are taken from each tree to facilitate crossdating and to reduce the effects of ring-width variations related to differences in the two sides of the tree. The number of trees sampled from the site depends on how sensitive the trees are to the environment, but the average is about 20-30 trees.

---

​

Ponderosa Pines, for the record, are in the same subgenus - Pinus - as the Moneterey Pine(7).

​

Of particular note is the cause of false rings with specific reference to the type of environmental conditions that would prevail in certain locations with the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata, used by Dr. Batten. By contrast the conditions that prevail for the Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva, are more likely to produce missing or micro rings, a condition that would make the trees appear younger than they really are.

​

.... (cut material) ....

​

Conclusions

​

The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

​

Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

​

Dr. Batten is a fraud, a scam and a con, pretending to tell the truth to gullible people who want to believe a delusion, when in fact he is hiding the truth, misdirecting the issues and misrepresenting evidence.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

References

1. Anonymous "Bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/...o/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm"
2. Anonymous "Methuselah (tree)" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Methuselah (tree) - Wikipedia
3. Anonymous "Monterey pine Pinaceae Pinus radiata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/...o/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm"
4. Anonymous "Monterey Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 12 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pinus radiata - Wikipedia
5. Anonymous "Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change " NOAA Paleoclimatology. Updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
6. Anonymous "Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 14 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pine - Wikipedia
7. Anonymous "Ponderosa Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pinus ponderosa - Wikipedia
8. Anonymous "Prometheus (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 7 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Prometheus (tree) - Wikipedia
9. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
10. Cope, Amy B., "SPECIES: Pinus radiata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html
11. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus aristata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html
12. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus longaeva - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html
13. Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
14. Miller, Leonard, "Growth Characteristics" Sonic.net/bristlecone. Updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Bristlecone Growth
15. Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 Not Found
    

---

I have taken out parts that refer to later evidence, and we can go back to those when we come to that evidence.The net result of Don Batten's work is

• he badly misrepresents the status of Pinus radiata as closely related when it is in a different subgenus, it has been cultivated by the timber industry for fast growth (ie selected for false ring growth) and grows in an entirely different ecology. For someone with his status as a plant biologist this is inexcusable unless his purpose is to deceive gullible and ignorant people and he is not worried about scientific truth in this article (which is not peer reviewed).
• he claims that false rings cannot be found, then claims that he found 5 false rings in one specimen. These claims are mutually exclusive and one or the other must be totally false.
• he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.
• he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.
• he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.
• he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

In other words Don Batten on this one article has shown that when he is writing for creatortionista websites that he is a completely unreliable source that willingly provide false witness to deceive gullible and ignorant people.In other words two things:(1) false tree rings (and missing rings) are a known phenomenon in dendrochronology and a scientific methodology has been developed to eliminate their effect from the chronologies, and
(2) Don Batten actually demonstrates how effective this methodology is when he uses it to determine the number of false rings in his samplesThe tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the dendrochronologies take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves). Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that timeReady to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?Enjoy.ps -- this seems longer than it really is. The important information is:

Don Batten's article is false and misleading and he actually confirms the validity of dendochronology.

There is another tree with the same age

Both Trees correlate for climate and age

Message 85

quote:

---

ps -- this seems longer than it really is

---

Yes, you'll have to understand that I am a busy person and if posts continue to be this large, I may not be able to debate more with you than a few points before school starts up again... Notice my rebutals take only a couple sentences and possibly a quote, wheras your rebutal requires a whole essay to make it seem as if you really have a strong rebutal, when in reality, your argument is still weak and some MAIN points are purposely avoided. This I will attempt to show here, briefly:

quote:

---

He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas

---

I think that this example of false rings in one species is decently enough to cast doubt on the dates of other tree species. Why? Well you're missing an important point, we as Creationists believe that the "kind" which is referenced in Genesis is much broader than the contemporary "species", which would mean that it is possible that an example from one "family" (possibly even broader) of trees would be enough to cast doubt on the dating of all those trees.Also, I imagine that as a dendrochronologist, if one were dealing with a very old tree, they would try to count up enough rings to get the oldest tree, because it would bring them fame, and this can bring error in counting false rings. Remember, humans are fallible, especially in science when funds and acceptance depend on the "common" mindset of evolution.

quote:

---

in a different environment

---

Hmmm... I wonder if the Flood would be considered a different environment, and the directly post-Flood conditions-possible ice ages, etc. You must realize that the environment was not always the same, right after the Flood the conditions could be unstable for years...

quote:

---

The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same.

---

Refer to above for first part, but he did not say they were the same exact species or subgenus, he said they were the same genus, and as I stated above, the Biblical kind can be as broad as family or beyond...

quote:

---

He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

---

This may be, but if there is error in ANY number, in ANY species, I think it is well enough to cast doubt on the dates using this method. Of course, it only casts doubt on some of the dates, not totally debunk any usuage of the method with corrections for the false rings and hidden rings, etc. What we are debating here is a certain example, an example which is a bit old, not the whole method, so I think we could move on or else not get much anywhere.

quote:

---

That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary.

---

Yes, perhaps it is easier to find false rings when the date goes against your belief, or in the case of the old examples-when the date could "debunk" your opponenets' beliefs if you measured a bit less carefully...

quote:

---

The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

---

Cross-references may be a bit difficult when you are dealing with only a handful of specimens which are as old as they are said to be...

quote:

---

Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

---

I do not think that after such a find he would trust this as the best method to use...I must wonder, are you manipulating the data to fit your argument? You quoted http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 but didn't include these quotes from the SAME article: * "Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ”species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ ” see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?." and * "Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era."
I must seriously doubt your whole argument just from this cover up of replies to your attacks in the same article that you quoted...

quote:

---

he claims that false rings cannot be found

---

Does he say they cannot possibly be found, or just difficult to find?...

quote:

---

he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.

---

Perhaps these methods would be abandoned when dealing with the possibly oldest living tree which would bring you great fame? Humans are fallible, especially when it comes to fame...

quote:

---

he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.

---

Of course, it would not support his argument, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist! When you write something, you do not want to confuse your readers... I'm sure that any one of us, as fallible humans, is fully capable of doing this as I have just demonstrated what you did with your quote...

quote:

---

he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.

---

Perhaps this is so, but consider the above post and your own hiding used in your quote...

quote:

---

he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

---

This is merely a restatement of the point 3 points above

quote:

---

Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time

---

Still, tree ring dating is in doubt when such and similar situations occur.

quote:

---

Ready to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?

---

I'm always ready to move on, considering the limited time and will power I have... But it seems we could debate this one point the whole summer and not get anywhere. I suggest this, we do it here like I did with Anglagard, you post your Old Age Correlations one by one, and I make one rebutal to each, we do this until we reach the end of your list, then you go through and say anything that you have against my rebutal and I what I have against that, through the whole list, repeat. So that way we can get throught the whole list in the summer with at least one claim/rebutal each. What do you say?Peace.Off topic, but is that your picture?

Notice my rebutals take only a couple sentences and possibly a quote, wheras your rebutal requires a whole essay to make it seem as if you really have a strong rebutal, when in reality, your argument is still weak and some MAIN points are purposely avoided. This I will attempt to show here, briefly:

I think that this example of false rings in one species is decently enough to cast doubt on the dates of other tree species. Why? Well you're missing an important point, we as Creationists believe that the "kind" ...This may be, but if there is error in ANY number, in ANY species, I think it is well enough to cast doubt on the dates using this method. Of course, it only casts doubt on some of the dates, not totally debunk any usuage of the method with corrections for the false rings and hidden rings, etc. What we are debating here is a certain example, an example which is a bit old, not the whole method, so I think we could move on or else not get much anywhere.Yes, perhaps it is easier to find false rings when the date goes against your belief, or in the case of the old examples-when the date could "debunk" your opponenets' beliefs if you measured a bit less carefully...Still, tree ring dating is in doubt when such and similar situations occur.

But didn't include these quotes from the SAME article: *

Also, I imagine that as a dendrochronologist, if one were dealing with a very old tree, they would try to count up enough rings to get the oldest tree, because it would bring them fame, and this can bring error in counting false rings. Remember, humans are fallible, especially in science when funds and acceptance depend on the "common" mindset of evolution.

Hmmm... I wonder if the Flood would be considered a different environment, and the directly post-Flood conditions-possible ice ages, etc. You must realize that the environment was not always the same, right after the Flood the conditions could be unstable for years...

Cross-references may be a bit difficult when you are dealing with only a handful of specimens which are as old as they are said to be...I do not think that after such a find he would trust this as the best method to use...I'm always ready to move on, considering the limited time and will power I have...