Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 2:16 AM
362 online now:
Coyote, GDR, kbertsche, PaulK (4 members, 358 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,060 Year: 25,666/21,208 Month: 1,293/2,338 Week: 50/364 Day: 1/49 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
3536
...
39Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 496 of 578 (809563)
05-19-2017 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by CRR
05-18-2017 11:12 PM


Re: How old is it anyway?
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date?

Arguments against the evidence I present here? Okay: ineffectual and incomplete, none explain the correlations.

Please start with Message 2, Bristlecone Pines, and see what you can accomplish.

quote:
By counting tree rings and matching the overlapping patterns of growth from live to dead trees, scientists have developed a tree-ring chronology of nearly 10,000 years using wood from the Schulman Grove area, California (one tree still living is 4,839 years old).

edit: see Message 269 for new record holder at 5,062 years old in 2012.

Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.

This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

This is only the start.


Note there were also pieces of dead wood used in the chronology that were found lying on the ground, wood that should have floated off in a flood.

Note there is no correlation here yet, this is the first set of data showing an earth older that YEC claims. The correlation start with the next post Message 3.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : wood that would float ...

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 11:12 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 497 of 578 (809565)
05-19-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by ICANT
05-19-2017 12:07 AM


Re: European Oaks
Why would they all be dead if they were covered with water they don't have the breath of life in them? Just wondering.

Trees breath, they take in C02 and exhale oxygen, and most trees drown if covered by flood water for 100+ days.

Flood tolerant trees can be found growing on floodplains, but they have leaves above those periodic floods that create the floodplains, and are only tolerant for water over the roots. See willows.

Bristlecone Pines are not flood tolerant.

Message 495: Is there any spot on earth that has not been covered with water at one time?

This is an issue for another thread: see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

See Message 189 where I've copied\moved this discussion for further discussion.

This thread is about discussing the methods used to measure age, any perceived problems with them, and with the correlations between the methods.

With Message 3 you are running into the first correlation, the one between the Bristlecone Pines and the European Oaks, correlations such as the 14C/12C levels being the same in the tree rings for the same year count for two different dendrochronologies from opposite sides of the earth, one pines high on a mountain and one oaks living on floodplains.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : moved to another thread


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 05-19-2017 12:07 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7196
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 498 of 578 (809599)
05-19-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Faith
05-18-2017 7:03 PM


Re: The earth is OLD, get used to it.
Faith writes:

Uh huh. Well, so are some who do understand it.

That wouldn't even work in 2nd grade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 7:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 499 of 578 (809666)
05-20-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by CRR
05-18-2017 11:12 PM


European Oaks and your first correlation to explain
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date?

In Message 496 I gave you a brief summary for the Bristlecone Pine data from Message 2. Here is the same summary for European Oaks from Message 3:

quote:
My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.

The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes.

There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in (then) ~8,000 years, an error of 0.5%. Third, is that when one oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, now the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in ~7600 years, an error of 0.5%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and these initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating and including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.

These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.

Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).

Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.


So we have three dendrochronologies that agree within 0.5% after 8,000 years of tree rings.

How is such accuracy obtained if there are any problems with the dendrochronology process?

Note that the dendrochronologies were matched not just on climate data (ring widths) but on the level of 14C/12 existing in the rings (not "14C Age"). This correlation is discussed in greater detail in Message 4: Adding German Pines to the Mix. I'll have more to add when we get to that, as there is an update to the data that extends it.

You may also want to read Message 20 and Message 109

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 11:12 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 500 of 578 (809762)
05-20-2017 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Bristlecone pines (BCP) are possibly the oldest trees on Earth, with he oldest living specimen of bristlecone pine reputed to be approximately 4,900 years old. However the largest BCP, the Patriarch tree is estimated to be a mere 1500 years old. The "oldest" trees come from extreme environments with short cool summers with a growing season thought to be only several weeks long, desert-like aridity (250 mm of precipitation per year, mostly as snow), and strong winds coupled with air that in the summer is said to be the driest on earth, and the rocky ‘soil’ (where there is any ’soil’), means that what little rain does fall will evaporate or drain away quickly. Many trees grow out of little more than cracks in dolomitic rocks.

Trees in such stressed conditions are known to form additional rings. Sometimes these can be identified as such but where rings are thin, as in these BCPs , they are often indistinguishable from annual rings. Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring. They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer.

However BCP's growing nearby but where moisture conditions are better, as in valley areas where a decent soil can accumulate, do not reach the ancient ‘ages’, ‘No old bristlecone pines are found in the valley bottom, which is a sheltered area with deep colluvial soil and gentle surface slope.’

Researchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP trees, where growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the soil thins and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most rings are found. It seems more probable that all the trees in the stand are about the same age, but that the trees growing at the margins are starved for water and grow multiple rings to conserve water.

So although some researchers do consider each ring as an annual ring there is good evidence for a significant number as being false rings. Biblical dating would put the flood at ~2349BC., or ~4350 before present. 11% false rings would put the age as less than the time to the flood. 25% would put starting date after the post flood ice age. If Glock et al. are correct in their estimates of the frequencey of false rings the trees could be much younger.

Source: http://creation.com/...-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines

Edited by CRR, : Source added.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 4:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by edge, posted 05-20-2017 10:50 PM CRR has responded
 Message 503 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2017 6:26 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 508 by Taq, posted 05-22-2017 3:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 501 of 578 (809767)
05-20-2017 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by CRR
05-20-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Trees in such stressed conditions are known to form additional rings. Sometimes these can be identified as such but where rings are thin, as in these BCPs , they are often indistinguishable from annual rings. Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring. They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer(bold added for emphasis)

If Glock actually said this, why does his colleague say the following:

quote:
". Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pine, however, and they are especially infrequent at the elevation and latitude (37 °23'N) of the sites being studied." https://arizona.openrepository.com/...b-29-03-04-003-029.pdf (bold added for emphasis)

That's kind of weird, eh?

Actually, you are citing a secondary reference called NephiCode, a Christian blog site:

http://nephicode.blogspot.com/

Think they have an agenda?

If you have direct information that Glock actually said what they report, please document.

As it turns out the original article by Glock is:

quote:
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback – 1960
by Waldo S Glock (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/...owth-layers-branches/dp/B0007DTO02

Get the difference: This refers to branches of trees.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by CRR, posted 05-20-2017 10:09 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM edge has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 502 of 578 (809777)
05-21-2017 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by edge
05-20-2017 10:50 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback – 1960
by Waldo S Glock (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/...owth-layers-branches/dp/B0007DTO02

Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns
ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound!

[edit] So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours.

Edited by CRR, : as marked


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by edge, posted 05-20-2017 10:50 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by edge, posted 05-21-2017 12:57 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 511 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2017 8:42 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 513 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2017 4:28 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 503 of 578 (809787)
05-21-2017 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 500 by CRR
05-20-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Thank you CRR for another example of creationist deceit.

This is one large cut and paste and not your words, right? I'll forgive you for thinking this is a good piece of information ... it isn't.

Trees in such stressed conditions are known to form additional rings. Sometimes these can be identified as such but where rings are thin, as in these BCPs , they are often indistinguishable from annual rings. Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring. They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer.

"Common in many species ... They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, ..."

... meaning that they were able to discern multiple rings in other species. With the techniques used by dendrochronologists to remove potential errors. Using trees susceptible to multiple rings.

In 2007 I dealt with a similar paper by Don Batten, see Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud.

So although some researchers do consider each ring as an annual ring there is good evidence for a significant number as being false rings. Biblical dating would put the flood at ~2349BC., or ~4350 before present. 11% false rings would put the age as less than the time to the flood. 25% would put starting date after the post flood ice age. If Glock et al. are correct in their estimates of the frequencey of false rings the trees could be much younger.

Someone is lying to you, either Glock or (more likely) someone misrepresenting him. How do I know? Because there is more actual data that validates the Bristlecone Pine ages.

See the new version of this thread, currently in development, The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1), and Dendrochronology Basics, Message 9:

quote:
Three levels of replication of correlations are used to obtain accurate and precise results. The resulting dendrochronologies are thus accurate and precise, due to identification of both false and missing rings and determining annual rings from numerous samples, and by cross-checking the information on multiple levels. Some species of trees have stronger demarcation of annual layers than others, and this makes some species better for dendrochronologies than others.

It should come as no surprise that the thousands of dendrochronologist working on the chronologies are actually able to discern the difference between rainfall or stress patterns, that could cause false or missing rings, from annual patterns when assembling these chronologies with high levels of confidence.

Part of the challenge for age deniers that honestly question the dendrochronologies is to have some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them. Again I note that the real challenge for age deniers will be to explain the consilience in results from independent systems, rather than pick individual systems apart. More to come.


In The Bristlecone Pine Chronologies, Message 10, there is some updated information:

quote:
There is a second Bristlecone pine chronology that was developed independently of the master chronology (and using no common samples), and it provides additional information:

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale(3)

quote:
... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values ...
... Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony.

A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronology comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. The Methuselah chronology very probably contains no dating error, at least back to 3435 BC.


The time scale used here is the same "extended scale," where 8000 equals 1 BCE, so 8001-5859 = 2142 BCE and 8001 - 5330 = 2671 BCE. The "M" designates the Master chronology above.

The difference found was that two rings were missing from the second chronology and they matched two rings in the older chronology that were narrow growth rings rather than extra rings. The new chronology did not extend the age of the old chronology, but it did validate and strengthen the Master absolute Bristlecone pine dendrochronology from 1970 CE through 3,435 BCE.

Note that missing rings showed the resulting chronology was too short (under counted). Because of this cross-checking, with only two errors, we can have high confidence that the Master Bristlecone pine chronology is indeed a minimum record of annual tree rings firmly anchored in the present and extending to at least 6,291 BCE.

This is the first test of the consilience between different systems, even though they use the same technique - dendrochronology - and the same species - Bristlecone pines - they were developed independently and were basically identical for the years that overlap, and the new chronology properly counted the intervening years. This is very strong consilience.


Do you understand what this means regarding your paper? They say:

Researchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP trees, where growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the soil thins and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most rings are found. It seems more probable that all the trees in the stand are about the same age, but that the trees growing at the margins are starved for water and grow multiple rings to conserve water.

So the pattern with extra rings they propose should result in no consistent match between the two chronologies because they grew in different areas and should have been affected differently -- by their own words.

I think that should be enough to put "bogus" on your article, but there is more:

quote:
Additional Information on Bristlecone Pines, Message 11:

There are several factors that go into both the extreme age of Bristlecone pines and the confidence we have in the rings being accurate annual rings.

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale(1)

Three things to note: (1) that two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies were compared; (2) that the interval between the chronologies was 18 years and 18 rings were found in most samples in the new chronology, but some of the samples were missing one ring, and (3) none of the samples had an extra ring.

The climate and ecology of the Bristlecone pine is high, dry and cool, with minimal precipitation, most occurring as snow, which occurs even in July. The trees have adapted to the environment by taking advantage of the resources available during that portion of the year that temperatures are above their minimum growth level, a very short growing season:

Substrate-oriented distribution of Bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California(2)

Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July. July would also be when the snow melts, so it would be the wettest month of the year for growing, and mid August would quickly become the driest. In addition, July and August are usually the only months with temperatures over 50°F.

The first impression is that growth would be water limited, and thus there should be a false ring due to the rain late in the summer, but there is another factor that limits growth, and that is temperature:

Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes(3)

Because the Bristlecone pines grow at such high elevations they have very short periods of growth when the temperature is only slightly higher than required for growth (~47°F). This actually helps ensure that the tree rings are annual without false rings from stress.

This information does not increase our knowledge of the minimum age for the earth, but it does increase our confidence in the Bristlecone Pine chronology accuracy and precision.


And I'm not done yet ... Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events, Message 16 in the new thread version:

quote:
... Thus we can test dendrochronologies with historical events, and we can look at this aspect in greater detail here:

Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (abstract)(2)

We can see the evidence of frost-rings for 1817 (following the "year with no summer"), and for 1884, after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. There are several other notable events shown going back to 1601 CE, however there was no frost-ring for 1785 when one of the highest DVI's was recorded.

Such effects may not occur in all locations, due to weather patterns, and thus may not affect all three chronologies, but effects can still be found in many wide spread localities. Frost rings are reported in pines in Sweden for example. Similar correlations can be found for other volcanic eruptions, demonstrating that these events can affect the tree-ring growth in a way that can provide accurate information of the interaction of eruptions with climate:

This high consilience between these independent chronologies ... increases our (already high) confidence in the Bristlecone pine chronology.


Note that is 100% accurate at 200 years, 200 years with no "Glock effect" showing up.

But your biggest challenge will come after you deal with the oak chronologies, Message 3 on this thread and Message 13 through Message 16 on the new thread. At that point the relevance of Glock's paper will be moot.

Again the issue is not the particular accuracy of the particular method or set of evidence, but the correlations between different sets of data and different methods that are consilient -- why do they get the same results?

You've got some reading to do.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : correlations


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by CRR, posted 05-20-2017 10:09 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 504 of 578 (809830)
05-21-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by CRR
05-21-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns
ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound!


So, now we are back to using book reviews as evidence for the validity of YEC "science"?

Do you realize that David Barker is not a scientist of any kind?

Do you realize that the only books he heartily recommends are ones that espouse or (in his own opinion) support non-mainstream science?

Why do you think that is the case?

[edit] So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours.

I do not have a copy. I can tell from the title that it may not be relevant to bristlecone pine dendrochronology. Do you understand why?

However, I'm pretty sure that Glock is a legit mainstream scientist. Your spin on the data comes from the site that quoted him. That is why we do not trust secondary sources.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2017 4:38 PM edge has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 505 of 578 (809847)
05-21-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by edge
05-21-2017 12:57 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
I do not have a copy. I can tell from the title that it may not be relevant to bristlecone pine dendrochronology. Do you understand why?

Might be interesting to check it out at the library, rather than spending money on it. I live in a small town but the libraries are linked throughout the state and you can get books from any of them.

However, I'm pretty sure that Glock is a legit mainstream scientist. Your spin on the data comes from the site that quoted him. That is why we do not trust secondary sources.

By the time we get through with the European Oaks (Message 3) the issue of multiple rings in Bristlecone Pines will be moot -- they show that the Bristlecone Pines must be missing rings because they are ~37 years shy at 8000 years of common data. That's a 0.5% error and the other way from their proposed/assumed/wished 11% error (that was calculated to fit made up "biblical times").

Also see Message 503, and as always ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by edge, posted 05-21-2017 12:57 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by edge, posted 05-21-2017 5:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 506 of 578 (809848)
05-21-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by RAZD
05-21-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
By the time we get through with the European Oaks (Message 3) the issue of multiple rings in Bristlecone Pines will be moot -- they show that the Bristlecone Pines must be missing rings because they are ~37 years shy at 8000 years of common data. That's a 0.5% error and the other way from their proposed/assumed/wished 11% error (that was calculated to fit made up "biblical times").

Yah, I'd say it's not really a burning question and I don't really want to pursue it.

As far as Glock goes, he is cited by Ferguson (1969) several times and since they are/were contemporaries I would assume that they worked together at some point.

Here is the reference to Ferguson:
https://arizona.openrepository.com/...b-29-03-04-003-029.pdf

... where he says on page 6:

quote:
Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pine ...

And when you look at the title of Glock's primary article, it refers to tree branches rather than trunks, and I don't think that many studies rely on branch data. The fact that there is little further discussion in the literature tells me that there isn't really a conflict; except, of course, in the minds of ardent YECs grasping for an argument.

That is where this NephiCode stuff comes into play. It looked to me like CRR had cut and pasted directly from that blog.

Ah, well, dead horse ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2017 4:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 507 of 578 (809918)
05-22-2017 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by CRR
05-18-2017 11:12 PM


Re: How old is it anyway?
OK RAZD, I've come to this forum. Would you like to give me a summary of the arguments to date?

You might also want to check out old Great Debates on this topic:

Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only
Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD

Both discontinued by other participant dropping out

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 11:12 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7196
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 508 of 578 (809983)
05-22-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by CRR
05-20-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
CRR writes:

Bristlecone pines (BCP) are possibly the oldest trees on Earth, with he oldest living specimen of bristlecone pine reputed to be approximately 4,900 years old. . .

As RAZD has stated many times, it is the consilience between data sets that demonstrates their accuracy. What you need to explain is how the Bristlecone Pine data in North American correlates with the Oak data from Europe. If local changes cause multiple rings or lack of rings, then how is it that a different species half way across the globe produces the same data?

On top of that, you also need to explain how the tree ring data also correlates with lake varves, corals, ice layers, and speleothems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by CRR, posted 05-20-2017 10:09 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2017 6:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1586
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 509 of 578 (809994)
05-22-2017 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Taq
05-22-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
On top of that, you also need to explain how the tree ring data also correlates with lake varves, corals, ice layers, and speleothems.

Plus Carbon 14 data.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Taq, posted 05-22-2017 3:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by jar, posted 05-22-2017 6:40 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 510 of 578 (809997)
05-22-2017 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Tanypteryx
05-22-2017 6:19 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
Plus EVERY other method of testing developed so far.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2017 6:19 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
3536
...
39Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017