Monthly Archives: June 2007

draft debate post #4

Well, I was going to avoid the direct approach but since you insist on lying, quotemining, welching and being stupid, you leave me little choice. The quotes you chose from Ferguson misrepresented his work.

From your last post:

[quote=”afdave1″] 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.


Starting with Ferguson’s abstract, I note that he says …

[quote]The [7104-year] chronology was extended backward in time by incorporating tree-ring series from living trees up to 4600 years old, as well as from standing snags, fallen trees, large remnants, and eroded fragments.[/quote]

OK. The obvious question is “How did you know that particular samples should fall in the 4600 – 7104 year old range?”[/quote]

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 you diplodocus brained nitwit. Then read Yamaguchi and figure out what he’s saying. Hint: He’s suggesting a MORE FUCKING ACCURATE STATISTICAL TEST!

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:

[quote]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) …[quote]The availability of datable wood in the 9000-year range has been indicated by radiocarbon analysis.[/quote]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…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.[/quote]

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 FUCKING POINT YOU MORONIC BLOCKHEAD.

[quote]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
2) They latched on to Ferguson and his new Dendrochronology.
3) They “helped” Ferguson pick samples of the earliest possible age
4) These “early age” samples were determined to be “early age” by radiocarbon dating
5) Ferguson took those samples and matched them up as best he could
6) But as [url=]Yamaguchi (1986)[/url] showed later, auto-correlation of rings is a major problem, so it appears quite possible that the selected samples could fit MANY date ranges
7) The Radiocarbon people were happy because now they had their “calibration”
8) It seems the radiocarbon people don’t care about Yamaguchi[/quote]

1. Once again, that was the point.
2. see 1
3. I don’t care if you are stupid but I do care if you use your stupidity for evil. No they didn’t.
4. Wrong. They were picked for appearance of age and used after statistical correlation put them in the master sequence.
5. That’s what the paper was about.
6. And you are using the new, more refined and precise math to prove what exactly? That it only gets more exact?
8. Jesus fucking Christ. Only in your bible thumped head. Yamaguchi refined the fucking technique! HE MADE IT BETTER.

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:

[quote]”Sensitive” tree growth: * High degree of annual variation
* Wide and narrow rings intermixed through time
* Limiting growth factor (e.g., rainfall) is highly variable year to year
* Especially true for harsh sites (steep/rocky for moisture sensitivity; see figure at left)
* Reasonably sensitive ring growth is good:
o Matching patterns of relatively wide and narrows rings across trees is
easier when ample variation exists

“Complacent” tree growth:

* Low degree of annual variation
* Rings are roughly the same for many years consecutively
* limiting growth factor is not variable from year to year
* Especially true for benign sites (flat with deep soil for moisture complacency; see figure at left)
* Complacent ring growth can be difficult to crossdate:
o matching patterns of relatively wide and narrows rings across trees is
harder when not much variation exists [/quote]

From a very good primer on dendrochronology at [url=] this site.[/url]. I read it and you should too you lying, quotemining, welching imbecile.

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.

So, my 3 questions:

1. Why did you stall with that quote-mine from Ferguson?
2. Why do all the data points in Fairbanks’ calibration curve converge on the same points? You must address this or your claim of circularity is bunk. 100% diarhea from the anus of a sick emu.
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