|Author:||BWE_the real_one. [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:47 pm ]|
“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.
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.
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).
- 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
- BWE’s Final Debate Post