Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
344 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 343 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 1486 (507414)
05-04-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
05-04-2009 8:00 PM


Old earth, young earth, and the flood that wasn't
Well, if you're going to delve into puns you could describe them as all wet and much in need of hydrotherapy.

But more seriously, it is simply amazing the nonsense YECs come up with to try to explain the the age of the earth and the biblical flood in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

I call these "what ifs."

"What if" the decay constant varies? There's no evidence that it does, but "what if" it did?

The vapor canopy and wildly fluctuating decay constant are classic "what ifs" -- totally unsupported by scientific evidence, but enough to let some YECs delude themselves that science supports their religious beliefs when it really contradicts those beliefs.

And there you have some of the differences between creation "science" and real science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 05-04-2009 8:00 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 1486 (547670)
02-21-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:55 AM


Lest you think we are ducking the issue...
Creationists keep bringing up the phony issue of residual C14 in objects too old to contain C14, and they use this to support their mistaken idea of a young earth. Their "issue" with radiocarbon dating is based on 1) their lack of understanding of the AMS method and the many possible sources of C14 at those incredibly small quantities, and 2) wishful thinking.

Here is a long and detailed article on the subject.

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?

A pertinent sample:

Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.

If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”

The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.

Read the entire article and you will see that this is a phony issue, and shows creationists' misunderstanding of the AMS method rather than evidence of a young earth.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:55 AM Brad H has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 1486 (549525)
03-08-2010 2:47 PM


Bump for Manifest
In the Ark/Flood thread you responded to my post with this:

Concidering the flood all pre-flood dates especially couldn't be reliable.
1- A constant rate of decay is assumed
a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded.
b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.
c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.
d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.
2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.
3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

1) The RATE study, funded and run by creationists, attempted to show that the decay rate varied. It failed, and they had to admit that the rate has been constant for hundreds of millions of years.

a, b, d) We are aware of the fluctuation in the atmospheric content of C14. This was first described by de Vries (1958), just a few years after the development of the C14 dating method. To account for this, a calibration curve has been worked out using tree ring dating and several other methods of correlation. The atmospheric variation was found to be less than 10% at the greatest.

c) Carbon is absorbed into living organisms from the environment. The C14 in the ocean matches that in the atmosphere fairly closely (see below). Creeks and rivers are different; they can have a lot more old carbon from limestone, and thus are not good dating materials. This means old limestone could alter freshwater shellfish, making them look much older than they are. There is a much smaller effect from "reservoir" carbon in oceans, but that is easily identified and accounted for. A lot of study has been devoted to dating charcoal and marine shells from the exact same proveniences (hearths, for example).

2) You (or actually the source you cut-and-pasted from) are thinking of other forms of radiometric dating, not radiocarbon dating.

3) We do not assume that. We constantly look for contamination, and eliminate it. We date multiple specimens--my last large archaeological project produced 31 radiocarbon dates.

Now, I typed that from my own knowledge, without having to hunt the web. You, apparently, know nothing about the subject and are forced to cut-and-paste material from creationist websites and you have no idea how accurate it is. In this case, it is not very accurate at all.

Care to try again?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2010 10:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2010 10:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 1486 (550048)
03-12-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
03-08-2010 2:47 PM


Another Bump for Manifest
Are you ducking out on us?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2010 2:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 52 of 1486 (653507)
02-21-2012 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
02-21-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Evidence against a recent flood is in the correlations
That is another great point. All of these data sets would be easily interrupted by Noah's Flood. In fact, the ice sheets themselves would have lifted off of the continents (unless creationists want to claim that ice did not float in Noah's time?). You should also see an interruption in tree growth and diatom sedimentation. Heck, you would expect contamination from marine plankton in the Lake Suigetsu record, but it isn't there. Instead, it is all fresh water diatom growth and organic debris sorted by tiny differences in 14C.

Right.

But wait! There's more!

We have been told that the flood was a global flood (though a few are now backing off those claims).

And biblical scholars have reached a general agreement of about 4,350 years ago for the global flood, with fewer and fewer estimates older than about 5,000 years ago.

This means that evidence for the global flood should be... (wait for it)... GLOBAL! And RECENT! It should be in my back yard and your back yard and in creationists' back yards not too far beneath the surface.

So here is the challenge for creationists: learn some archaeological techniques (local colleges and universities are the place to start) and get busy digging in your back yards. If there was a global flood you will find the evidence at a relatively shallow depth, one which can be dated by a variety of methods. If, by chance, you live in an asphalt and concrete jungle don't try digging in the nearest park--you'll get more attention than you probably want. But you could volunteer on an archaeological excavation, or take an archaeological field school. You don't have to tell them you are a creationist: just pay attention to the strata and their ages (the archaeologists will help fill you in on the data) and check out those strata closest to 4,350 years ago. If you see evidence of a flood at that time period you've got something!

The problem you might run into is that early geologists, creationists set on proving the validity of the flood, gave up on it just about 200 years ago. The evidence wasn't there. When archaeology developed as a profession a bit later in the 19th century no evidence of Noah's flood was found using their different techniques--which dealt with soils rather than geological strata. No evidence of a global flood has been found since, right up to the present day, in either profession.

In doing archaeology I've probably tested over 100 sites that cross-cut that time period and I've found no evidence of a flood in the areas in which I've worked. But if I could find and document such an event they'd create a special Nobel Prize just for the occasion! You can bet if there was any real evidence I'd be seeking it out and documenting it to a fine degree, and I'd be more famous than Galileo and all those other old guys. But the evidence is just not there: all of the various sciences that have examined the earth in ways that surely would have found such evidence have instead found that the evidence is conspicuous by its absence.

C'mon creationists, explain these correlations.

Agreed.

And while they're at it, they should explain why there is an absence of evidence for a global flood at the agreed-upon date in their back yards and everywhere else.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 02-21-2012 3:41 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 10:22 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 59 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 12:17 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 1486 (653855)
02-24-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pollux
02-24-2012 10:53 PM


Re: More correlations
There is a lot of good information on this site:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm

The first link, "IntCal04 calibration curve" leads to a lot of graphs of the calibration curve.

The actual datasets are also given in additional links.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pollux, posted 02-24-2012 10:53 PM Pollux has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 60 of 1486 (653867)
02-25-2012 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pollux
02-25-2012 12:17 AM


Re: Flood (and other) problems
All of the credible evidence shows that the earth is old and that there was no global flood during historic times.

Those who argue to the contrary are not doing science, but are anti-science--they are promoting religious mythology in the face of massive scientific evidence that contradicts that mythology.

The age correlations at the heart of this thread are one of the major stumbling blocks to both young earth and recent global flood, but the TRVE believers are not swayed by any amount of scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. In fact, for many of them, nothing will convince them that these two beliefs are wrong. They do not rely on evidence, much less scientific evidence, for their beliefs and so will not change those beliefs for such evidence.

These are classic examples of Heinlein's statement that, "Belief gets in the way of learning."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 12:17 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Pollux, posted 02-25-2012 1:31 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 1486 (654100)
02-26-2012 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
02-26-2012 4:13 PM


Re: More correlations
And, a news piece in Nature on 16 Feb. tells of a recent paper in Physical Review Letters that describes a optical-spectroscopy way to measure carbon 14 at much lower levels than current methods can. This may well allow carbon dating further into the past, though folks will have to be even more vigilant about contamination than they are now. And the instrumentation is potentially far cheaper than accelerator mass spectrometers.

I've been waiting for some breakthroughs in this field. Current AMS dates are $595 at Beta Analytic. If we could get some significant cost drop we could do a lot more samples. Additional accuracy would be a nice side benefit as well.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 02-26-2012 4:13 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 9:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 78 of 1486 (654119)
02-26-2012 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Pollux
02-26-2012 10:16 PM


Re: More correlations
The reported plateaus and rises in the C 14 curves compared to a straight line relation seems to me to be good evidence that true results are being recorded. One YEC I have blogged with asserts that 95% of RM dates are discarded because they are "wrong". I hope this does not cause Coyote to explode! At $595 a test, the idea of some researcher doing 100s of tests to be able to report a few "right" ones strains credulity a mite much!

I am familiar with YEC's and their claims regarding radiocarbon dating. They just make things up based on what they need the answers to be, no matter what the facts really are. That 95% figure is from some study some creationist did back in the 1960s. You know how much you can trust that!

So far, I have done 611 radiocarbon dates; that is way more, I suspect, than all of these rabid creationists combined! I have written a monograph on radiocarbon dating and delivered lectures to professional societies. I was even on the advisory board for a university radiocarbon laboratory a couple of decades ago.

When creationists want to tell me how things are in radiocarbon dating they better bring some evidence and leave the belief and myths behind.

And there are a couple of other folks here who are probably even more experienced, particularly in the nuclear chemistry part of the technique.

Creationists should tread with caution in this neck of the woods.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Pollux, posted 02-26-2012 10:16 PM Pollux has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 1486 (662510)
05-16-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 3:11 AM


A silly question answered
Answering just one of your silly questions:

"The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change." The past, modern past or acient? How do you know this happened and didnt happen in acient times? How do know todays constants were in acient times?
"The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects."
This states that your dating techniques are consistently off regardless which way. And why are they not correct anyway?

Tree rings provide accurate counts taking us years into the past. They correlate within historic times with volcanic activity. No serious researchers question their accuracy.

The calibration curve is made by dating those individual rings! For the recent part of the curve the rings are dated annually, while for the older parts of the curve they are dated in five or ten year increments.

What this does is allow a calibration curve to be constructed which corrects for atmospheric variation. As creationists are wont to point out, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is not constant due to fluctuations in cosmic rays and changes in the earth's magnetic field, etc. (They only know this because scientists discovered it--creationists are drawn to research about as much as vampires are drawn to garlic.)

Once the individual tree rings are dated, the difference between a known date (the tree ring) and a radiocarbon age can be established. Calibrating this radiocarbon age allows accurate dates to be obtained from unknown materials.

So, to answer this question:

This method tells us what happened in the past and allows us to correct for atmospheric variation. We know what happened in the past because we have the tree rings from the past!

The dates obtained from C-14 dating are not consistently off, they are calibrated so that they are correct.

----------

I'll await your response to this specific question and once we get this one thrashed out we can move on. No Gish gallop!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:11 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 05-16-2012 11:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 112 of 1486 (663752)
05-26-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:44 AM


Decay constants
The RATE team, with over a million dollars of creationist money, set out to prove that decay constants weren't constant.

They failed.

Read a summary of the results below:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:44 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:58 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 1486 (663781)
05-26-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:58 PM


Re: Decay constants
Nice try, but no cigar.

"Even so, in spite of this thermal annealing and resetting, there remains sufficient strong evidence to conclude that both the fission tracks and radioisotope ratios in the zircons in the Cambrian Grand Canyon tuff beds record more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay during deposition of the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region. Given the independent evidence that most of this strata sequence was deposited catastrophically during the year-long global Flood about 4500 years ago, then 500 million or more years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay had to have occurred during the Flood year about 4500 years ago. Thus, the fission tracks in the zircons in these tuffs are physical evidence of accelerated nuclear decay."

That's the complete opposite of what Randy Isaac said the report concluded. To me that looks pretty dishonest to misinterpret the report like that. You really should double-check these assertions from now on because that's a pretty good example of dishonest misinterpretation of a paper right there.

There is no "independent evidence" for a year-long global flood about 4500 years ago. There is no evidence for that at all! On the other hand, there is massive evidence that there was no global flood about 4500 years ago.

The 500 million years in the Phanerozoic strata sequence is not negated by reference to a flood that never happened. To attempt to use a mythical event such as this "global flood" to calibrate the Phanerozoic strata sequence is just to make things up so it all comes out the way you want. That's the exact opposite of science.

By the way, I have independent evidence from my own archaeological work that there was no global flood about 4500 years ago. A skeleton I dated at 5300 years ago had DNA that matched living individuals in the same area, and that DNA didn't match that of peoples from the Near East. That shows continuity of a human population across the 4500 year line in North America, and that evidence by itself disproves the flood.

There is another similar example from other archaeologists working in the western US that shows continuity from 10,300 years to living individuals. This kind of evidence, in fact, is found all over the world.

(See signature, below.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:02 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 139 of 1486 (663828)
05-26-2012 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
05-26-2012 6:15 PM


Bump for Jzyehoshua
I realize there have been a lot of responses to your posts, but you haven't yet responded to my post, Message 120, which contains evidence that:

1) your contention regarding the Phanerozoic strata sequence of the Grand Canyon-Colorado Plateau region is incorrect, leading to

2) the contention that you made regarding accelerated nuclear decay is incorrect, and further,

3) there was, based on archaeological and genetic evidence, no global flood during the past 10,000 years.

I would appreciate a reply if time permits.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 6:15 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 149 of 1486 (663841)
05-26-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 11:17 PM


Correlations, not what-ifs
RAZD and others have been providing you with correlations among a variety of dating methods, while you have been providing nothing but "what-ifs" in reply. "What-ifs" are imagined reasons why things might not be as scientists have determined, provided with no supporting data.

Example: Scientist: The sky is blue. Creationist: But what if it was pink in the past?

Here is an article that should take care of a lot of your what-ifs, if you are honest about research:

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

Richard G. Fairbanks, et al.

Abstract: Radiocarbon dating is the most widely used dating technique in the world. Recent advances in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and sample preparation techniques have reduced the sample-size requirements by a factor of 1000 and decreased the measurement time from weeks to minutes. Today, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of all measurements made on accelerator mass spectrometers are for radiocarbon age dates. The production of 14C in the atmosphere varies through time due to changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field intensity and in its concentration, which is regulated by the carbon cycle. As a result of these two variables, a radiocarbon age is not equivalent to a calendar age. Four decades of joint research by the dendrochronology and radiocarbon communities have produced a radiocarbon calibration data set of remarkable precision and accuracy extending from the present to approximately 12,000 calendar years before present. This paper presents high precision paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C age determinations on pristine coral samples that enable us to extend the radiocarbon calibrationcurve from 12,000 to 50,000 years before present. We developed a statistical model to properly estimate sample age conversion from radiocarbon years to calendar years, taking full account of combined errors in input ages and calibration uncertainties. Our radiocarbon calibration program is publicly accessible at: http://www.radiocarbon.LDEO.columbia.edu/ along with full documentation of the samples, data, and our statistical calibration model.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0277379105001654

Fig. 3. Our coral calibration curve plotted with 1% confidence limits (corresponds to 3σ uncertainties for normal distributions) and coral data plotted with 1σ error bars. Calibration curve is compared to the tree ring chronologies (Reimer et al., 2004; Friedrich et al., 2004).

------------------------

The above is a calibration curve made from two tree ring chronologies and a coral series.

At this point you should be starting to get the idea that there is some real science behind these dating methods, and that the creationists' examples are all based on "what-ifs" with no supporting data--especially when multiple dating methods agree as closely as they do.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 11:17 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-27-2012 1:11 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 150 of 1486 (663842)
05-27-2012 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 11:32 PM


Re: Rapid Bristlecone Pine Growth Rates
This post contains no evidence that tree-ring dating is unreliable.

Your first example shows that some bristlecone pines are growing faster now than in the past. For dating purposes, what would matter is whether they are growing more, or fewer, rings. This study notes that some of the trees are growing thicker rings. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate.

Your second example discussed trees thought, from visual inspection, to be at least 1,000 years old. Tree-ring dating showed they were younger. That is not evidence that tree-ring dating is inaccurate.

You really need to select your examples with some care that they actually support your arguments.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 11:32 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-27-2012 1:31 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-27-2012 1:48 AM Coyote has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021