BWE’s 6th Post

Author: BWE_the real_one. [ Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:35 am ]
Post subject:

afdave1 wrote:
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.

BWE says Sorenson was wrong and gives as his evidence an extract from a 1990 paper by Seuss and Linick, which says that 2 other laboratories obtained such samples. Well, this doesn’t refute Sorenson. Sorenson is saying that the Master Chronology is the work of one lab, not that only one lab took samples.

Good god man. Pull yourself together.

How about if you download the relevant pictures of the trees Ferguson used from “Methuselah Walk” to construct his 7104 year Master Chronology and post them here so I can see them? Then your case would be very convincing that everything is on the up and up and no one is trying to hide anything. Think it over.

Dave, think man, think! Hide anything? Jesus, I posted my draft post ahead of time so you could avoid this. Dave, tree-ring labs spread throughout the world with hundreds if not thousands of scientists and published papers would have caught on. Look at your objection above again. Other labs used samples and I posted the page where you can schedule a god-damned son of a bitching fucking tour of the goddamn things. FUUUUUCCCKKK!!! Dave, when you tilt your head do you hear the ocean?



It is fortunate that dendrochronologists are highly trained, isn’t it? 1-a is misleading and knowingly false. Skeleton matching is statistical and computers find the matches. If something doesn’t fit, 14c dating, among other things may be used to determine an appropriate fit but that piece does not get into the master sequence at that point. A master sequence sample must exibit high sensitivity and a perfect cross-match to be included in the master sequence.

I doubt it. Remember, Ferguson was working in the 60’s and Sorenson wrote in the mid 70’s. Yes, they use computer cross matching now, but I doubt they did initially. Also, the computer algorithms simply automate and remove human error from the earlier visual process. But they still look for the same things and thus Sorenson’s objection is valid.

OK. This is the last time I’m gonna copy a fucking part of that paper to the sonofabitching clip board, paste it into a new cocksucking photoshop file and post it to the donkey blowing photobucket. From now on you have to read it yourself. This is just dumb. No, not dumb. Lalalalaloooney. Do you wonder why you have no memory from before waking up in that hospital? Fuuuuuuck.



And I’m posting this one just as a refresher:




Quote=BWE: Blatant lie. Refer to my original use of the ferguson 1969 quote.

Quote=Dave:Blatant lie? How? What original use of the Ferguson 1969 quote? Please be more specific.

read the image above.



In conclusion, the bristlecone pine chronology is flawed through lack of adequate documentation. Answers to the following five questions would substantially clarify the issue:

a. How can a chronology be constructed with a high percentage of complacent specimens?

a. It can’t. It isn’t. READ FERGUSON’S PAPER.
b. How can specimens with up to 10 percent of their rings missing be cross matched under any circumstances? b. Sensitivity includes this factor. This would be a tree with higher sensitivity and thus better for crossmatching.Fortunately, large enough samples are used for master sequencing that the rings aren’t all missing (also).
c. How can this chronology be used to “calibrate” radiocarbon dating when radiocarbon dating is used in construction of the chronology?
c. It isn’t.
d. If a ring is missing how can it be found, especially when a high percentage of rings are missing?
d. By knowing how.
e. Why is only the final chronology published, with refusal to release the data upon which it is based?
e. release being a key word here.

a. You say it isn’t, but you haven’t shown this. Can you show me that it isn’t. Because Sorenson says it is. Why should I trust you over Sorenson?
b. Sensitivity includes this? Really? Then we should probably put a microscope on this sensitivity thing, shouldn’t we?
c. Oh, but wait a minute. Yes it is. Remember all those people that have told me “Dave, we can calibrate C14 with dendrochronology … and varves … and ice cores … and you name it.” BTW, varves are WORTHLESS for dating anything. See my recent post at IIDB on June 24 here …
d. “By knowing how …” And you know how, I presume?
e. Release. Yes. Please release that data to ME. Here at I want to see those pictures of Ferguson’s tree rings.

Dave, this is the lamest excuse for a debate imaginable. You are acting like a two year old and posting aha!’s to things I already refuted. You have raised no objections to anything point I have made, you insinuating Ferguson faked the data. That’s sort of the ultimate fall back. Well, if I’m losing accuse them of lying. 14C dating is not circular. Dendrochronology isn’t circular. I explained why in my first post but here is a schematic of why it isn’t. I made this a few weeks ago but it turns out I need to use it here.


BWE: 3. How can Dendrochronology and 14C calibration be circular when Fairbanks’ curves use up to 12 independent sources for 14C calibration curves?
AFD: 3) Easily. Just as I have explained above. Yes, we must also look at the other methods, but now we are examining dendro.
That is the stupidest, most lame excuse for an answer that even a fundy has ever used. FFFUUUUUCCCCKKK. I’m getting drunk at lunch so I can forget your stu-fucking-pidity.
BWE: Re: answer 3: Could you please explain how this addresses the question???

This whole thing is circular. I have not examined the Fairbanks curves. But why would I think they are any different from the Ferguson 7104 yr chronology?


Let me just explain real simply what it appears is going on.

1) Everyone (except creationists, that is) makes the assumption that C14 has been relatively constant for eons. Bad assumption. There’s this elephant in the living room called the Global Flood of Noah that messes up this assumption royally.
2) Another assumption is made that the dead tree trunks and branches lying around in Methuselah Walk (and similar locales) have been lying there for >5000 years in many cases.
3) Somebody (Ferguson) gets the bright idea to make a Master Dendro sequence, but how to initially place the samples?
4) Aha! Let’s date them by C14!
5) Now that we have approximate placement by C14 dating, we try to correlate the rings. Of course they could correlate in many different ways, but we are so sure of our C14 assumptions that we are just sure that THIS is the way they correlate, not the other 10 ways they could correlate. IOW, ALL these branches and trunks are probably less than 5000 years old. Has anyone tried to correlate them with THIS assumption? I suspect that they would line of just great! How about we try it next time after BWE supplies the data images?
6) Now if you refer to my takedown of “varve chronology” you will see the same sort of thing going on except it’s a little different. In this case we don’t have tree rings–which admittedly are annual normally–we have sediment layers. These have now been shown to be, in many cases, nothing more than “rhythmites” formed by turbidity currents. They most often have NOTHING to do with seasonality at all! And these so called “varves” (which are most often not true varves at all) are dated by selecting leaves and twigs buried in the “varves.” How do they select the right twigs and leaves for dating? Well, we don’t know. For Lake Siugetsu, they used about 85 samples out of more than 250 collected. Why did they not plot the others?


So in the case of varve chronology, we have a system which is fraught with unanswered questions and questionable science at best. How can we say that this serves as an “independent check” on anything?

We cannot.

Sorry, BWE … I’m not buying all this as legitimate science. It looks more and more to me like data that gets shoehorned into a preferred view.

My 3 questions:
1. Why do you suppose the bristlecone data was cross-corellated with varves, ice cores and a combination of 14C in Stuiver et. al.? ?
2. Do you have any actual problems with the science so I know what kind of things I should be trying to explain?
3. Since I already supported my position in my first post, and since it still stands unchallenged by you, I wonder, do you know what it is you think you might accomplish by doing this?

1. To try to give the impression that this data is unquestionable.2. Yes. See above.3. Yes. I’ve accomplished a lot so far. Thanks for the peek into the “science” of Dendrochronology that you have provided.You’re a nice guy. You should quit bashing creationists and join them. They are not lying scumbags as you have been told. Those who have told you that don’t know what they are talking about or are lying themselves.

Dave, I am a nice guy. You are right. I am just a bit frustrated at the moment. I will try to calm down. AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUMMMMMMM

ok. Here goes:

A scientist learns to start with a broad question and work towards understanding in a kind of a drill down fashion. This system helps him avoid stupid mistakes like the ones you make. Never assume. Don’t assume there was a flood. Don’t assume there wasn’t. Go out and look and draw your conclusions from what you find. If you learn how to assume little, you are less likely to be the butt of a joke when you are shown to be wrong. Another important trick taught in scientific training is the art of isolation. A scientist tries hard not to test anything but the question he is asking. Controls and procedures absolutely must be reproducible by anyone trained in the scientific method and the specific technologies used, using only the notes of the original author. Because of the peer revue process, a trained scientist learns to publish only that which has been proved.

The ever more specific questions create a map of the system under investigation. The discovery that a system exists at all is the triumph of the scientific method. Trying to claim a place in the system of the physical world for miracles , i.e. inputs from outside the system fell out of favor during the enlightenment as the system began to fit a schematic. Nothing has ever been observed that falls outside that schematic. Modern creationists, recognizing that fact, try to claim that the miraculous events, being fact, are in fact detectable and thus fit within the schematic. But since the schematic is being filled in with ever more detail and precision with multiple lines of investigation all reinforcing each others’ conclusions and all of the data exhibiting remarkable consilience, and as a random and unplanned consequence erasing the places in the schematic written in by ancient mythologies, those trained in science have no need to investigate these matters further because careful observation has proven them to be false.

Trying to put those failed hypotheses back into the schematic, creationists must challenge the parts of the refined schematic that erased their legends in the first place. The problem at this point in human progress lies in consilience. The entries that negate the creationist claims find support from every other line of inquiry relating to it’s functional part of the system. Science is writing the manual for the universal system. That consilience of the schematic, investigated from many angles to the point where it begins to resemble a three-dimensional net or neural net means that scientists can dismiss creationist claims out of hand because they failed long ago. There is no functional difference between knowing the mechanic is wrong and knowing the creationist is wrong.

When Mr. Douglas wondered if tree rings could be cross referenced, he began a branch of science known as Dendrochronology. When J. R. Arnold and W. F. Libby invented radiocarbon dating they too began a branch of science. Same with ice-cores, varves, speleotherms, marine sediment cores and many other similar fields of study. They were each developed for individual reasons and to place independent entries in the schematic of the physical universe. Each branch involves hundreds, possibly thousands of scientists, trained in the scientific method and educated in the accumulated knowledge of a general region of the schematic.

If any part of the schematic fails, the entire region suffers a ripple effect. There is no way to conceal a serious error for long. Other, independent inquiries will need to cross that axis eventually. To misunderstand the process enough to believe that there is any question whether a branch of science represented in independent research institutions and universities worldwide by hundreds or thousands of trained, qualified scientists with an enormous body of published work in the field is valid is a demonstration of supreme ignorance of what is being studied.

The title of this debate, your title, asks if dendrochronology is valid science. The ability to ask that question demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the process. It is, in short, retarded.

My 3 questions:
1) Do you understand my point above as to why the title of this debate is retarded? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.
2) Do you understand what my argument is in claiming that dendro and 14C are not circular? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.
3) Do you know that I presented evidence pointing out intentional misinformation and lying in every single creationist source we’ve covered in this debate? Do you understand what my argument is in claiming that dendro and 14C are not circular? Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can. Please explain your understanding and refute my point if you can.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s