|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Statistical analysis of tree rings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I can't see how you know they're for bristle cone pines: From the file you can't tell. I found it from Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology, the first reference at the end. If you can't trust Woodmorappe who can you trust? Don't answer that. The data is briefly described at Graybill - Methuselah Walk - PILO - ITRDB CA535. The file format is also briefly described at Description of Tree Ring Data Files and Procedures: Format for Tree-Ring Data Files.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'm not interested in disucssing statistical analysys until it can be proven that the creationist community has access to the data source on the 14C dates for the Ferguson Chronology, among other things. Then stop posting your amateurish and unfounded "analyses".
Also, if cannot be established where rings were subjectively added by researchers, then there is no point in talking about statistics. You're confused on on the burden of proof. If you think "rings were subjectively added by researchers", it's up to you to present evidence for your claim. "0" might well mean "present but less than the increment of measurement".
Real science requires original data. You got original data. You want something better, put up some money, get a permit, and go core a tree. Gee, wonder why Wody didn't do that?
As it is a huge majority of the "matches" involve rings of "0" width. Since you are "analysing" by your own undocumented and unverified methods, this claim is meaningless noise. Specify your methodology and your mathematiocal justification for it.
My current hypothesis is that the "0"'s were fraudlently placed Hypothesize whatever you wish. When you have evidence that supports your hypothesis, present it. Unspecified and (almost certainly) invalid "analyses" aren't evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23157 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Check out Message 14. It's a reply to me, but I think it was intended for you.
Why does he think a moving average is helpful? It seems like that would remove the detail necessary for finding correlations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Check out Message 14. It's a reply to me, but I think it was intended for you. I think his posts aren't intended for anyone but himself. He's trying to convince himself. He's obviously not putting any effort into convincing anyone else. ETA: I have no idea why he does any of the calculations he's done. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5037 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
It seems like that would remove the detail necessary for finding correlations. Sort of answering your own question, aren't ya'? Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Check out the IntCal98 information - they used a moving average (p 3/1043)
quote: I would think you would want to use 11 year moving average to reduce the effect of an 11 year cycle, so that each averaged value would be for a whole 11 year segment. This method does not appear in the IntCal04 article, so I would assume that Daniel4140 is using the older information based on his comment of making a previous model. He may be confusing methodology for 14C with that for tree ring counting. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : lastP Edited by RAZD, : link by our ability to understand Rebel American 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 3169 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Given enough white noise, you can find a signal in anything! Actually S/N ratio is a concept in science that is well understood. If signal to noise were a problem why are they using decadel samples when they could improve the S/N ratio by using annual samples? reference: RAZD's 2nd link in post #10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23157 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
RAZD writes: He may be confusing methodology for 14C with that for tree ring counting. Could be. He seems to like playing with numbers willy-nilly, sort of like numerology applied to tree ring widths. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5804 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
quote: There you have it. It's alleged cold fusion all over again.The artificial "0"'s in the file are the signal -- put there by the subjective judgment of Ferguson and company. Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Got any evidence of that?
What did the researchers say when you contacted tham and asked about them? Oh, you're just going on your made-up fantasy, without evidence and without consulting anyone else Ohm and the data set ain't ferguson's. You are s-o-o-o-o slow. Let's see your justification for your climas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23157 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Daniel,
It might be hard to tell, but we're actually delighted that you're interested in analyzing the raw data. But it has to be a rational analysis, and you can't keep interjecting unsupported conclusions without losing all pretense of objectivity. Developing your own analysis techniques from scratch isn't likely to bear fruit, but if you want to continue trying then we'll continue giving you feedback about whether you seem to be doing anything meaningful. But you might be better off seeking flaws in existing analysis approaches. For instance, you could use the tree ring specialists own analysis software and seek contradictions, such as sequences of known date that correlate with tree ring sequences of other known, but different, dates. Or perhaps you could show that they're too lenient in the degree of correlation they seek. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel4140 Member (Idle past 5804 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Jon, you just see what you want to see, and nothing else. Ferguson's been dead a long time. He never published his primary data. The data you see is the evolution of his data put out by his students, who were compelled to publish some of it.
You could have guessed that I would have known that. It's no different than saying Moses wrote the Torah though he had help from his fellow Levites. Your automatic disrespect of creationists argues loudly for the vile falseness of your own position. Your pickiness on a point not relevant to the proof of your position says your grasping at straws just to win by bullying. No honest person will buy that as an argument. Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 489 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Actually, I've shown far less automatic disrespect than you. I've been very respectful and polite, especially in the OP of this thread.
You still haven't come up with any evidence for any of your claims. You still haven't attempted to validate any of your statistics. And you say I'm grasping at straws?? Well, that's just so ironic all I can do is post a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
I ask again, Daniel, where are the ICR (or other organizations) published studies to show how tree ring dating is wrong?
If you think you can do it why hasn't it been done and done again yet? Why do creationists avoid that question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 3169 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Daniel4140 writes:
..the pot said to the kettle. Jon, you just see what you want to see, and nothing else. I have been using google scholar to pull articles about this subject to inform myself and it seems that zero ring widths are quite common, understood due to periods of severe stress, and result in no problems whatsoever. There is quite a long history of this science. It began in the present (a century ago) with lots of opportunity to verify the method. I think the first validation came from the study of a stump and telling when the tree was felled which was confirmed by locating the lumberjack involved. It has grown ever since with multitudes of participants and data on all the continents. There is so much data from the white mountain area alone that they have a difficult time cataloging it all. By applying the technique to lumber used in construction in ancient archeological sites, floating or relative ages were attached to the various sites. But now the floaters are all part of one long chronology. The red pill isn't for everyone Daniel, steak tastes good even if it exists only in the mind of the consumer..
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025