Dave’s 5th Post

Author: afdave1 [ Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:

In my last post, I wrote …

Quote:
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

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. But anyway, I’m glad there are other labs involved. Please tell me their names and show me their papers.

Moving on, you say …

Quote:
Well, I suppose for the hard of reading I will have to go back and point out that there is a link in my answer number one. One of the links from that page is this one. I forget sometimes how shockingly stupid you will be so I must appologize for not being more specific. That last link is a list of databases of tree ring sequences raw data from around the world. One of those links takes you to this page where Ferguson’s data can be downloaded. Saves the time and expense of going to Arizona and recreating the data. Of course, if you really needed to see them, you could do what I suggested in answer #6 and call them. I did. The receptionist pointed me to This page and explained that people come to see the sequences all the time. She also directed me how to go about applying for use of the samples. Surprise, they want to know what my research would be. I just added that last bit for fun. I already wrecked your claim above but I just wanted to make sure that you have enough information that stupidity is your only refuge.

Thanks for the links. They look promising. However, no luck with being able to download anything from them. Maybe its my creationist computer or something. Over at IIDB, you’d be in big trouble for using an “argument by link”, but I don’t mind. I’ve done it in the past also. 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.

BWE’s RESPONSES TO SORENSON’S OBJECTIONS
OBJECTION 1

Quote:
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.

OBJECTION 2

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

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

OBJECTION 3
Refers me to earlier rebuttal.

OBJECTION 4

Quote:
Quote:
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?
b. How can specimens with up to 10 percent of their rings missing be cross matched under any circumstances?
c. How can this chronology be used to “calibrate” radiocarbon dating when radiocarbon dating is used in construction of the chronology?
d. If a ring is missing how can it be found, especially when a high percentage of rings are missing?
e. Why is only the final chronology published, with refusal to release the data upon which it is based?

a. It can’t. It isn’t.
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. It isn’t.
d. By knowing how.
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 … http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=210239
d. “By knowing how …” And you know how, I presume?
e. Release. Yes. Please release that data to ME. Here at RD.net. I want to see those pictures of Ferguson’s tree rings.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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