-
Recent Posts
- pictures
- Moderator’s Introduction
- BWE’s 1st Post
- Dave’s 1st Post
- BWE’s 2nd Post
- Dave’s 2nd Post
- BWE’s 3rd Post
- Dave’s 3rd post
- BWE’s 4th Post
- Dave’s 4th Post
- BWE’s 5th Post
- Dave’s 5th Post
- BWE’s 6th Post
- Dave’s 6th Post
- BWE’s 7th Post
- Dave’s 7th post
- BWE’s 8th Post
- Dave’s 8th Post
- BWE’s Penultimate Post
- Dave’s Penultimate Post
Archives
Meta
Moderator’s Introduction
Author: | RichardPrins [ Thu May 24, 2007 10:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Formal Debate: Dendrochronology and C14? |
Dendrochronology and C14: Circularity or Valid Science?
|
Posted in Uncategorized
BWE’s 1st Post
Author: | BWE_the real_one. [ Sat May 26, 2007 10:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Dendrochronology and C14: Circularity or Valid Science? |
So, I can explain dendrochronology and I will as it becomes necessary. For now, I humbly submit my opening post: My proposal in this debate, here used with the meaning of “debatish” rather than the normal use of the term, consists of three parts. 1. The first part is that this title is a retarded way to look at an established science. 2. The second part is that dendrochronology is a valid method of C14 dating calibration and is not circular. 3. The third part is that Creation “Science”, the word “science” here used with the meaning of “sciency” rather than the usual meaning of the word, relies on rhetorical games, logical fallacies, quote-mines, sweeping statements that aren’t followed through on and plain old ordinary stupidity. This creation “science” is responsible for many of the retarded ideas about science that bounce around the internet including the idea that C14 dating can’t be accurate despite multiple, independent dating techniques all cross-referencing each other. No challenge to dendro or C14 dating exists that doesn’t rely on fallacies and obfuscations for the argument. ————————————————————- 1. The title: Any science is valid science if it uses valid data and the scientific method including the peer-review process to increase understanding about phenomena. The fact that someone thinks data is in error because the experiment is designed wrong means that person better go get cracking and publish some results that show just how that happens. That’s how it works. If you have that info go publish it. Believe me, the Tree Ring Society ( http://www.treeringsociety.org/ ), the Association for Environmental Archaeology ( http://www.envarch.net/ ), the makers of mass spectrometers and lots and lots of institutions will want to know. It’s pretty important to them. Since I couldn’t find any peer-reviewed publications with such a challenge, I have to conclude that none have been made. Feel free to correct me on this. But! even if there were, the idea wouldn’t be either/ or, it would be a fabulous scientific problem to occupy the time of countless labs, graduate students and researchers around the world. So, if some data or lab work gave credence to the idea that dendrochronology as a calibration for C14 dating is indeed circular, the title would be more apt as “Dendrochronology inadequate as lone calibration technique for C14 dating”. Which, actually, er.. As it turns out, fortunately for all of us science-types, c14 levels are calibrated using a whole host of techniques, all of which actually reinforce the fitness of dendrochronology as a calibration technique. Nuff said on that little bit. 2. Dendrochronology:
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html I once worked next to a team who used dendro to determine the ages of ancient Native American fishing platforms. In “Collapse” by Jared Diamond he talks about using dendro to figure out when certain Anasazi sites were built and when they effectively deforested the surrounding area. Its importance in archaeology can hardly be overstated. The science is mature and at this point, validity has been established. Using tree rings to establish ages provides an accurate calibration for C14 dating. While the science is, er,… well, science, meaning that constant refinement is expected, the validity of the premise is not in question. Of this, experts in the field have provided reams of real empirical evidence. Lets just start here for now: 3. Some creationists, in what looks like an effort to shore up their financial base [sup]1[/sup] by assuring their followers that science couldn’t possibly be right since it contradicts the Bible, spend a fair amount of effort writing sciency sounding articles and editorials that draw heavily on rhetorical games, logical fallacies, lies, quote-mines, making bold statements and wagers without following through and lots and lots of sheer stupidity. Fortunately for them, the base is primed to believe. And, also fortunately for them, their believers aren’t typically scientists (although this is sometimes a chore to figure out). The circularity argument occurs frequently in the writing of a Dr. Don Batten, who points out that:
where the endnote (not the reference, the endnote) polishes his pearl by expanding on the statement:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 … dating.asp So, he claims that 14C is the way we tell how old the tree is so that we can use the tree to calibrate 14C. In a nutshell, that’s his circularity argument as I see it. From the real science paper listed above we discover that in fact, all kinds of tests were used to check the data. The dates were cross-referenced between different dendro sequences, ice core stratagraphy, varve counting and a mixture of C14 matching and varve counting. In other words, not an example of circular reasoning. What that means is that these sciences aren’t operating in isolation. The main reason creationists might make that accusation is because the data that real scientists acquire directly refutes the biblical account of creation as a certain group of fundies want to interpret it. Picking only the parts of a science that support your conclusion and ignoring the parts that don’t isn’t a totally honest tactic. —————————————————————- Since this is all a bit of a lark and my opponent is unarmed in a battle of wits, I will let him post any objections and ask me my first three questions before I ask any of him. I will post pretty pictures in the next post. Over to you Dave. |
Posted in Uncategorized
Dave’s 1st Post
Author: | afdave1 [ Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:28 am ] |
Post subject: | |
WRITTEN RECORDS ARE THE MOST ACCURATE FOR DETERMINING EVENTS OF THE PAST This may seem like an obvious statement, and indeed it would have been for most people prior to the “Great Darwinian Subversion” of academia which began in the late 19th century. THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF GENESIS But this theory has been discredited. Thanks to the massive efforts of 20th century archaeology, we now know … 1) that Moses and his countrymen DID know how to write and kept meticulous records … the skeptics were wrong Elsewhere I have pointed out clear statements by leading archaeologists such as Nelson Glueck and William F. Albright who spent their lives personally investigating the historicity of the Old Testament. Both of these investigators are quite clear in their contentions that the Old Testament including the Book of Genesis is highly accurate in its historical accounts. OTHER HISTORICAL RECORDS
The important item to notice relevant to our Dendrochronology discussion is that … Most of our knowledge of Ancient Egypt comes from the WRITTEN RECORD of Manetho and his king lists. We also have inscriptions on monuments and other written records. But I hope you will not miss the fact–seemingly lost on some modern historians such as “Fronkey” at this forum– that WRITTEN RECORDS have always been and will always be the most reliable means of determining events of the past. ********************************************* CARBON 14 DATING OF ARTIFACTS Carbon 14 dating is sound in principle, but only if proper ASSUMPTIONS are made, namely, the assumptions about … the C14 ratio in the atmosphere throughout the history of the planet If the world C14 inventory were in equilibrium (say for the last 100,000 years or so) and there had been no major global events of the past to alter C14 ratios significantly, then C14 dating could be assumed to be relatively accurate. Relatively minor variations in C14 ratios during the historical period of the world (up to ~6000 bp) should be able to be calibrated by various methods, of which Dendrochronology is one such proposed method. However, if one overlooks a major historical event such as the Great Flood of Noah, then Carbon 14 dating is called into question because of the massive alterations in Carbon 14 which would be expected to occur in such a cataclysm. Carbon 14 chronologists today are operating under the following assumptions … which of course, brings us to the subject of this debate. It is my belief that Dendrochronology, while it can possibly be used in a limited way to calibrate Carbon 14 dating back to ~3000 YBP (maybe as much as 4000 YBP), it cannot be used to determine accurate dates beyond this period because of the huge perturbation in C14 ratios caused by the Global Flood. Now I am quite happy to be proven wrong if BWE can do so, but I think it will be a significant challenge for him. Dr. Don Batten, a plant physiologist with much commercial success in his field to his credit, has written …
and he goes on to explain why he thinks it is a circular process. *************************************** I THINK IT’S A CIRCULAR PROCESS, BUT FEEL FREE TO PROVE ME WRONG And so, my good friend BWE, I challenge you to convince me that it is NOT a circular process. To do this, I will ask the same questions I have asked elsewhere … My starting point with this subject is SAWells’ (a physicist) post found HERE I follow Wells just fine on his first two points, but then he makes an incredible LEAP here …
Let’s just stop right there for a while. Please explain to me in detail how this process was done. Where can I go and see these original tree samples which were used to create the master sequence? I have in my mind’s eye, a picture something like this …
that would extend off to the right far off the page. How am I doing? Is that how this works? So I would like to see this entire master sequence and examine it closely. Can I do this? Where can I go to do this? What trees were used to build this Master Sequence? From where? What species? How long did they live? In short, please give me the details of how we get all the way back to 15000 YBP, considering the fact that the oldest livingtree is only ~4700 years old (Methuselah). Now I did read the article you linked which supposedly extends dendro back to 13000 YBP, but I was tripping over so many assumptions and unexplained items that it left me very confused about how this is really done. Maybe I’m just ignorant, I don’t know, but to me, this debate is all about EXPLAINING the basis for all these various assumptions and determining if they are valid or not. For example, from the Intro …
Well how about we just start right there and ask how we got an “unbroken West European tree ring sequence spanning the past 7272 years” ?? NOTE: We’ve each taken our shots now … you at Creationism and me at Darwinism, so I suggest we leave more of that aside for other places and other times and make our focus razor sharp on the present questions. 🙂 Over to you. |
Posted in Uncategorized
BWE’s 2nd Post
Author: | BWE_the real_one. [ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:56 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Dave, if I didn’t know you better, I’d think this was just the rantings of a lunatic.
Your substantiation for that statement must be in the next part but I can’t find it. What I see is one unsubstantiated claim followed by:
I only see 13 unsupported assertions. To be fair, 12 is, though self-canceling, asserted with a link to some other things that look like unsupported assertions and 13 refers to a straw man of some historical accuracy in genesis equating to all of genesis being accurate which I actually did remember being used as unsupported assumptions elsewhere by you. So, as far as I can tell, there is nothing of any substance yet. Therefore, unless you decide to demonstrate: A. that genesis has anything to do with dendrochronology Then you assert:
which you support with this statement:
Dave, think about this for just a minute. Anything? No? Oh well. One point for me. After you make an assertion you just refuted with your supporting evidence you do throw yourself a bone with this next unsupported assertion:
But then you bury it and forget where when you use the unsupported assertion which you refuted in the paragraph before you made it to support the original unsupported assumption restated with a remarkably dull-witted poke at a real historian:
Assertions do not support assertions. Just like a turtle doesn’t support Earth (may we dance naked and drunken in her honor). What you have is an assertion free-fall. Conclusion: Dave not only failed so support a single one of his assertions, the one he did try to support he supported with evidence that refuted the assertion. Dave loses 3 points, I win a beer and a stripper for the afternoon. So far you have offered nothing. Moving right along.
OK…. Are you pretending? BWE wins another beer.
Right. But since there was no flood of Noah (as I conclusively demonstrated in the flood debate comment thread and elsewhere) we don’t need to worry about it.
Jesus Dave, you’ve already lost 18 points and I’ve won 2 beers and a stripper before you even made your opening sentence. Do you have something up your sleeve? Are you laying a trap for me?
Why is that Dave? Do you agree with what he says? Specifically equivocating pinus radiata with pinus longaeva because tiger and lions can produce offspring? Dang I’m just going to get a beer ready for when you bring that one up. Just so you know, the reason Bristlecones are good for 14C calibration is the environment they live in:
Yes.
I’m not allowed to show you the real master sequence because it contains official secrets but I can answer your questions regarding them.
Well, if you think about it*, especially since you have a subscription to Nature, starting right there would be looking at the Pilcher paper. I’m a lazy citer so I’ll just c&p from the abstract:
But maybe you missed my first post where I pointed out that Batten was wrong about circularity because of the cross checking with other periodic stratification phenomena like ice-cores and varves etc. I’m getting a weird sense of Deja vue. Deja vue. This link here has a bunch of individual dating curves linked. You could check those and discover that for circularity to be a problem each would need to be the actual reference for each other. But that’s not the case now, is it? They are each independently drawn and then cross-checked against each other. Do you want to know why they are cross-checked against each other? Well, I’ll tell you. To determine the accuracy of each other. The cool thing about dendro is that the rings, once calibrated against ice-core data, and varve data, can be 14C dated and then that date can be referenced not only to the dendrologically derived age (guess what, they have some discrepancies) but the dendro ages can be cross-referenced against other techniques to check for it’s own accuracy. Since some climactic factors are recorded in periodic stratified phenomena like ice-cores, corals, marine sediments, varves, tree-rings, certain cave formations and others, those climactic events actually provide another cross-reference for dendro age determination too. Once the dendro age is determined through cross calibration, it works as a great way to calibrate 14C since the rings can be analyzed with 14C techniques. Lets review my 3 points. So, unless you have a specific objection, that point stands. Beer for me. 2. Dendro isn’t circular because it isn’t isolated and calibrated using itself as the only reference. So, unless you have a specific objection, that point stands. Beer for me. 3. Creationists are using fallacies, untruths and rhetorical games to confuse the issue and convince vulnerable people not to investigate the matter.
but fails to note how frickin easy it is to determine if this has happened. I’m gonna just post this image: This paper and you can just figure out why that might be. For a more detailed critique of the artist sometimes known as Woodmorappe click here I don’t have enough room to go through more than one creationist per post but the story will remain the same. So, unless you have a specific objection, that point stands. Beer for me. Are you trying to get me drunk so you can take advantage of me?
Wow. Well, that’s mighty gentlemanly of you there Dave. I think you forgot the bullets. My 3 questions: Might I suggest an approach that would at least attempt to form an objection to my OP? I mean, pretty pictures ought to refer to something anyway.
*Ha ha. |
Posted in Uncategorized
Dave’s 2nd Post
Author: | afdave1 [ Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:50 am ] |
Post subject: | |
WE’RE GETTING CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING DENDRO – SURE LOOKS LIKE CIRCULARITY TO ME BWE’s last post was around 3000 words (!) and I felt a little like gold prospector who got to San Francisco late. I had to search long and hard for the gold nuggets. But I did find one.
but his link was broken and I almost missed it. Nevertheless, I read it completely and you should too. What you will find is that the 7104 yr Master Sequence is composed of 17 samples represented in the graph below (from the paper). More details about the samples can be found in Table 2 from this paper, shown below. From the paper, note the following year conversion rules … * A.D. 1 = 8001 (set arbitrarily) Let me now quote some key statements from Ferguson. First, he explains that the oldest know LIVING tree is around 4900 years old. While there is some question if a few hundred years should be subtracted from this or not to account for multiple growth rings in some years, we won’t quibble over this now. We have much larger quibbles to focus on. A 4900 year old living tree is very close to what Creationists would expect, given the fact of the Global Flood of Noah ~5000 years ago. Starting with Ferguson’s abstract, I note that he says …
OK. The obvious question is “How did you know that particular samples should fall in the 4600 – 7104 year old range?” Well after careful reading, I don’t get a clear answer. But there are some clues. There is one clue in the following quote (also from the abstract) …
9000-year range? I thought we were going back to 7104 years ago. I’m not sure why he mentions this. BWE? Can you explain? Is he simply referring to later studies which extend the present 7104 year series back another 2000 years? Or is he saying that THESE samples, which are used as the basis for the 7104 year chronology are placed there because of radiocarbon analysis?? In any case, Dr. Batten’s point is well taken, whether this statement refers to THIS chronology, or to a 2000 year extension of this chronology, this is a big deal. Let me highlight this again … The availability of datable wood in the 9000-year range has been indicated by radiocarbon analysis. Wow. There it is. Right there in the abstract. Exactly what Dr. Batten wrote. How do we determine the age range to assign these wood fragments? RADIOCARBON DATING Wait a minute! I thought that Dendro was an INDEPENDENT calibration technique for calibrating Radiocarbon Dating. Now you are telling me that we FIRST determine what date range to assign to the wood by RC dating, then we turn around and use this “independent” tree sequence to calibrate RC dates?? Wow. Just wow. So it seems that Dr. Batten is right. Now, to be fair, maybe Ferguson was not referring to the PRESENT study with this statement. As I explained, it’s hard to tell. Even so, it’s a major problem. Although I couldn’t find an explicit statement from Ferguson, it DOES appear to me that radiocarbon assignment of fragments to age ranges IS the procedure for THIS study as well. Note the following … 1) (p. 6) Ferguson attempts to extend the chronology with material of two types 2) (p. 7) Ferguson mentions “age classes.” What is an “age class”? How is a sample assigned to a “class”? 3) (p. 8) Ferguson says that he searched for trees with “less critical qualities, “but still with the desired age and usable ring series.” “Desired age?” 4) (p. 8) Then the bombshell one sentence later. “This search, prompted to a large degree by those involved with radiocarbon analysis who were eager for dated wood of the earliest possible age, soon was centered in Methuselah Walk.” Let’s repeat that in large font for emphasis … “This search, prompted to a large degree by those involved with radiocarbon analysis who were eager for dated wood of the earliest possible age, soon was centered in Methuselah Walk.” ************************************************************* WOW again. Now, BWE … I am happy for you to try to show me why this is not really what it looks like it is. But what it LOOKS like is … 1) The Radiocarbon folks were eager to come up with “calibration” for their work OK, BWE. Please focus on my specific questions and spare me the 2800 words on why creationists are bozos in general, how many beers you are winning, talk about strippers, etc. <1000 words which are laser-beam focused on this Ferguson paper (and possibly the Schulman papers referenced in this paper), would be just dandy. Over to you! |
Posted in Uncategorized
BWE’s 3rd Post
Author: | BWE_the real_one. [ Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Excellent post Dave. You might have me on the ropes for the moment but I’m not down and out quite yet. Just kidding. I think this speaks for itself:
Jeez. 3000 words and you couldn’t find quotes to mine?
I knew you could do it.
Do you suppose Dave, that people who read debate posts don’t read the attached papers? In fact, in the comment thread, ck1 asked for the link again because it didn’t work in the post. I supplied it there too. Just to let you in on a little secret… (people who follow arguments do read the citations. Have you ever noticed how many responses your links generate?)
Trying to answer these questions in this order presents an interesting problem. But, let’s see if I can deal with them all together. Answer: This paper is from 1969. The reason I supplied it was to show that Batten, in standard creationist fashion, is dishonest in:
And then I posted the bit about why bristlecones are ideal for dendro. In fact, I used it as evidence to support my point that bristlecones are not the same thing as pinus radiata regardles off whether a horny whale can make a wholphin. So, go back and see if you disagree with that statement. Look at the article again and see if your disagreement casts any doubt on the conclusion that “the reason Bristlecones are good for 14C calibration is the environment they live in”, specifically that you think that you can equivocate pinus radiata with pinus longaeva because tiger and lions can produce offspring. Or perhaps for some other reason. Whatever. I’m easy. Anyway, does that help? The links I have supplied that speak to the issues you raised are:
So, does that help? Just to give you a little more help, Stuiver et.al. do use 14C to check the calibration on their various periodic phenomena but, er, that’s the point, isn’t it? Or this one which also demonstrates the remarkable power of consilience. These guys cross checked all their data between various curves too.
Also points to the same problem. Namely, that for dendrochronology to be circular, it has to be the sole source for 14C callibration and 14C calibration needs to be the sole source for establishing sample ages in dead trees. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be what’s happening. Can you imagine what that conference would have looked like where the guy stands up and presents his paper and some silly grad student in the audience raises her hand and asks, “Sir? Isn’t that circular? Did you try to calibrate your dates with any other kinds of sequences?” And the guy says, “Well, no, actually.” Awkward silence. Anyway, that seems to put the circularity argument to rest for the time being. Let’s move on.
Well, I’ve just put the stripper on retainer and billed her to your account. I also billed a keg of Bridgeport IPA to your account and I’m pounding one every time I laugh at your attempt to obfuscate in the creationist fashion what is actually fairy simple logic. The Yamaguchi paper you cited concludes: So I’m not sure you are reading the same thing as I am. Is this a problem with Dendro? Is he claiming Ferguson reached inaccurate conclusions? I think you should say “What it looks like to me”. Rather than “what it looks like.” At any rate, this is immaterial to the circularity argument. However it seems material to the third point in my proposition:
where you are the creationist in this case.
|
Posted in Uncategorized
Dave’s 3rd post
Author: | afdave1 [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:35 am ] |
Post subject: | |
MORE DETAILS ON WHY CREATIONISTS THINK DENDROCHRONOLOGY INVOLVES CIRCULARITY David Rohl has pointed out some serious problems with dendrochronology in A Test of Time (Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest), 1995, Appendix C, and an excerpt is provided below. Note the highlighted portion above …
And further questions would be … Why does Mazar reject the dendro curve? How about the wiggle-match problems? How about auto-correlation? How about inflated t-values? How about the Sweet Track Chronology being withdrawn? The South German sequence abandoned? Why did Kuniholm reject the date with the highest t-value? And so on? FERGUSON’S STUDY IS FUNDAMENTAL AND VERY REVEALING CHRONOLOGY BUILDING PROCEDURE Once this is done, I suppose that various wooden items such a roof beams from ancient sites can be placed in the approximate time frame by C14, then placed more accurately by matching rings in the master sequence. As far as I can tell, this is the supposed value of dendrochronology “calibraton” of C14. Note that physicist SAWells (PhD in earth sciences from Cambridge) confirmed point (2) above in this Forum in the Dendro Comment thread …
OBVIOUS (TO ME) PROBLEMS Do you get the picture? It seems that if we strip away all the pre-conceptions of uniform C14 and >10,000 year history of civilization, what we have left is some extremely questionable assumptions applied to some not-very-robust data sets to come up with some very shaky conclusions. Not the way I like doing science. ***************************************** Now, BWE … please … I am not interested in later papers at the moment. I am INITIALLY interested understanding MASTER SEQUENCE BUILDING. Ferguson seems to be a key player in this as basically the “foundation layer” for all that followed. I should certainly like to see hi-res photos of the 17 samples he used to build that chronology pictured in my last post. Have you seen these samples? Any way to get hi-resolution photos of them? Are the hi-res photos published in some paper somewhere that I can obtain? And how about my questions on the Comment Thread? Can you explain Mean Sensitivity=0.33 and Serial Correlation=0.46? What does this mean? Thanks. Over to you. |
Posted in Uncategorized
BWE’s 4th Post
Author: | BWE_the real_one. [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
“I’m stubbornly committed to the DATA … not majorities … not authorities … not public opinion. DATA.” Whoo boy Dave, here we go, you might want to find something to hold on to. This and my last will be (I hope) my only long posts from here on out and I apologize for the length ahead of time.
Actually, calling a circle a square does not diminish it’s ability to roll. Mr Rohl has not pointed out any serious problems with Dendrochronology your claim notwithstanding. Unfortunately, being YEC, and being thus compelled to create obfuscation strong enough to keep the rubes’ money flowing, he has to use enough information to keep the thinking YEC’s confused. Using real information can be dangerous when you are knowingly using a false argument. Now Dave, you wrote this:
I think a bit of deconstruction is in order here: By Mazar’s rejection, does Rohl mean Amihai Mazar of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem? The one who coauthored 14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings (the article will open with a free subsrcription) with Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht? (Science 11 April 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5617, pp. 315 – 318) Because if so, he apparently no longer objects. Yeesh. Of course that is the Mazar Rohl means.
Well, Mazar published that after Rohl wrote his book so we can only note that, as time marches on, another gap gets filled. Mazar’s objection is dealt with and Mazar starts to use the new technology. Strike 1. Rohl begins by misusing the royal “WE” rather than the correct “I” when he writes:
Actually, “We” can know this thanks to Ferguson, Stuiver, Yamaguchi, and many many others. Although, if you are any indication, “He” probably can’t. Interesting to note:
So, sorry to say this, but it looks like Ferguson isn’t subject to the entire next portion of this editorial, right? Since he had large enough samples with excelent characteristics for his study. Well, never mind. You want to use ferguson 1969 so I guess that’s what we’ll do. Actually, that’s what I did in my draft post I offered to you before you needed to post. Rohl’s problem is summarized and hinges on this bit here:
Yamaguchi apparently dealt a severe blow to “wiggle matching”. I mean, both Rohl and Batten cited Yamaguchi as scientific proof positive that Dendro ultimately fails because of autocorellation errors, right? Remember that doug-fir log that came up with 3 separate positive matches? That means that both Rohl and Batten must have read the Yamaguchi paper. So I suppose Yamaguchi must have been crushed when he invalidated his own field? Well, just to clear up a little misunderstanding, Yamaguchi didn’t invalidate wiggle matching. He improved it by demontrating the need for fitting autoregressive intergrated moving average models to standardized tree-ring series to remove autocorrelation from them. In fact, I read Yamaguchi and you should too! Here is a bit at the end: Hmmm. Makes you wonder don’t it? Let’s move on:
Well, fortunately Yamaguchi gave us a way to fix autocorrelation errors and now the field in general addresses them whenever appropriate. A peer reviewer won’t let that problem slip by now that it has been identified. Thank you David Yamaguchi. Hmmm. Now that I am aware of what Yamaguchi’s contribution was, it would be darned dishonest of me to try to claim autocorrelation problems in more modern peer-reviewed publications that do address the problem now wouldn’t it? Well, thanks for that scanned page Dave, So far all the creationist literature cited demonstrates dishonesty. That is part of my proposal and will certainly be part of my conclusion. Maybe you might want to double-check your sources before you post them. Actually, I’m glad you don’t. It gives a tiny bit of weight to your objectiveness that you don’t filter them.
Oh boy. Remember this:
??
How can you be so far off and still be able to get a fork to your mouth without putting out an eye? Dendrochronology establishes ages and then is used also to calibrate 14C for 14C’s sake. It is merely one of many independent 14C calibration methods. Dendro does not need 14C but 14C needs dendro. However, since so many disciplines depend on 14C calibrations being accurate, labs that publish 14C calibration data do not rely on any individual method. See Fairbanks.
So?
Let’s see. Did I already address these? Oh yes, The flood. An unbiased look at the data doesn’t lead the alien observer to even suspect that there was a flood. So, the assumption here is that there was a flood. Unwarranted assumption I mean. And Rohl’s problem’s turned out to be dishonest obfuscations so hand waving won’t be necessary.
Preconceptions. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don’t think any pre-20th century scientist or non-scientist for that matter had any pre-conceptions about 14Calibration. If we strip away all preconceptions, we would never even suspect that the flood myth existed.
I know.
Answers to questions 5, 6, 7. 6.I don’t know. Why? Do you know an expert who needs to examine them? You could call the Laboratory of Tree ring Research at the University of Arizona and I’m sure they could help you out. 7. Sensitivity refers to the kind of rings the sample exhibits. The lower the number, the higher the ring width sensitivity, the higher the number, the higher the ring width complacency. Remember complacency? That’s the dishonest ommission that Batten used to try to equivocate dolphis and rutting tigers or whatever it was. I do find it rather amusing that you are asking me questions about the post I haven’t posted yet. .33 is pretty darn sensitive. That’s the reason I posted Ferguson as a reference supporting my argument that Batten was dishonest for equivocating non-equal entities. It’s funny how you managed to pick that nugget out of there, possibly recognizing the potential discomfort but not knowing which end it was coming from. The serial correlation is a first-order (There is no small sense of irony here) equation relating every ring with the previous ring. .46 means that the samples are complete enough to account for missing rings etc. In other words, he is explaining why his samples are among the best possible samples available in the world. A basic primer on ring anomalies can be found here. The thing that makes it really funny is that you didn’t deal with any of it. So, here it is. The post I warned you about. Which, as I correctly guessed, would counter your objections and answer your questions. There is a strange bit of irony here. The quotes you chose from Ferguson misrepresented his work. From your last post:
But Dave, the tables YOU POSTED ABOVE, are examples of HOW HE KNEW! By correlation! No matter how he arrived at his tentative dates, he arrived at his absolute dates by using ring correlation. Just before the part you quote-mined, he labels 3 statistical procedures he uses to create his master sequence. Note the parts highlighted in Yellow. The first part is methodology and the second is your quote-mine. I underlined some other non-circular shit too but at this point I’m done with Ferguson. He set the bar. Yamaguchi, if you’d bothered to read him, actually refines the process and makes it even more sensitive. I’m sorry to post such a long quote here but the context for your quote-mine is aggregious:: You need to read the paper. Then read Yamaguchi. I did and you should too. Now, since Ferguson represents the science in it’s infancy in his 1969 paper, and since all subsequent science in the field is refining the techniques, lets just clear up this one last little detail on that:
So, no, it seems that Don Batten, CE, was wrong. The dating was done through statistical correlation not 14C dating. The fact that the research was done to establish an independent line of dated material that would be 14C datable is the WHOLE POINT.
1. Once again, that was the point. I’m going to focus on Don Batten, CE, for a moment. His argument rests on equivocating two different species with radically different environmental conditions. Here’s a quote:
From a very good primer on dendrochronology at this site.. I read it and you should too! Don Batten, as a plant physiologist, even a religious one, knows this. He tried to equivocate a species with complacent growth with one with sensitive growth knowing full well that this is exactly what dendrochronologists avoid. Lying for Jesus. Despicable. That was why I referenced Ferguson. I had kid gloves on though. I was trying to gently point out that the bristlecone was chosen for specific reasons. But now that you’ve insisted on going this route, I’ll go ahead and go down it. Creationists are lying to their flock to knowingly suppress knowledge. Nothing Batten says ever again in defense of his religion carries any weight because he is a confirmed liar. Now, you have provided no refutation of my first post which pointed out that the process is not circular because, in terms of 14C calibration, it is cross calibrated with many other phenomena. Fairbanks has that side of it covered. All the data converge on the same point. My 3 questions: 1. Where do you support the assertion that 14C calibration curves are built on “not-very-robust data sets”? 2. Can you point me to a single creationist science article making negative claims about dendrochronology or 14C dating that does not use dishonest science or rhetorical games intended to obfuscate? 3. How can Dendrochronology and 14C calibration be circular when Fairbanks’ curves use up to 12 independent sources for 14C calibration curves? Over to you P.S. The point of asking 3 questions is that you make your point by making a claim and citing evidence then you ask me three questions you think will damage my case. I guess I don’t mind if you ask me 7 or 200 questions but they shouldn’t be ones you need education on. Remember, we can’t delete these posts. Do you know what it is you are hoping to accomplish here? (That isn’t a formal question BTW, you are under no obligation to answer). |
Posted in Uncategorized
Dave’s 4th Post
Author: | afdave1 [ Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:04 am ] |
Post subject: | |
GOOD NEWS: A DETAILED, UNDERSTANDABLE EXPLANATION OF DENDRO Finally … I’ve been given a link which really explains dendrochronology very well. Thank you BWE. The above graphic is one of many that appear here … http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplo … ssdate.htm They even have nifty little Java applets that let you play around with plotting. Very cool! I would highly recommend going through the whole thing. That’s the good news. *************************** NOW FOR THE BAD NEWS The entire [master] chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which [Ferguson] has refused to allow critical study of the raw data. –Biochemist Herbert W. Sorenson, Ph.D (See below)
Now why do I say this is the bad news? Well because BWE answers “NO” to Questions 5, 6 and 7, yet he trust the experts implicitly. Now I thought scientists were supposed to DIS-trust everything and question everything and try to prove everything wrong. That’s what numerous people here have told me anyway. So BWE … why have you not asked to see these samples? Why has not SOMEONE asked to see these samples? [It turns out they have … see below] Why are these samples not available for other scientists to examine? Isn’t that a little bit “close to the vest”? What are they hiding? Creationist Walter Brown (PhD in Mech. Eng from MIT) was the one that alerted me to this little … *Ahem* … problem … in his footnotes … Quote:
“The entire chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which [C. W. Ferguson] has refused to allow critical study of the raw data.” For details, see Herbert C. Sorensen, “Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976, p. 5.
So … being the conscientious creationist that I am I pulled up my archives of CRSQ (yes, I subscribe to all the leading publications on both sides of the aisle) and Voila! Here’s the article referred to by Brown. It is written by Herbert C. Sorensen, Ph.D., who is [was at that time] a biochemist and president of Columbia Laboratories in Corbett, Oregon. He is also a Research Fellow of the Geoscience Research Institute in Berrien Springs, Michigan. I’m sure many of you will tune him out now that you know he’s from GRISDA, but nonetheless, I’ll tell you what he says anyway …
In conclusion, the bristlecone pine chronology is flawed a. How can a chronology be constructed with a high REFERENCES This was 30 years ago, guys and gals. Sorenson was asking the very same questions I have been asking 30 years ago!! **************************************** So BWE, my friend … your a nice guy and I’m sure you are very good at what you do. But it looks like you’ve got some hard questions to answer. Can you answer them? ****************************************
1) From the Ferguson paper. There are only 17 specimens and no one has been allowed to examine the raw data. |
Posted in Uncategorized