Dave’s 7th post

Author: afdave1 [ Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:23 am ]
Post subject: Re: Formal Debate: Dendrochronology and C14?

THIS IS A DEBATE ABOUT DENDROCHRONOLOGY … I NEED TO SEE TREE RINGS

Maybe I have not been clear enough. Maybe my last request was vague. I see that I asked for “raw data” but I should have reiterated what I have said previously, thus what I meant by “raw data.” What I meant was TREE RINGS.

Dendro_7104yr_seq

I really, really want to see tree rings. What would be great would be to see the rings from the bottom 3 specimens in the graphic above, plus the long specimen that spans from ~2500BC to ~800AD. It is my opinion that these 3 (and others) are misplaced (should not be in the 6000-7000 ybp range) and could easily be matched up with rings of trees in the <5000 ybp range. My opinion is that the Flood occurred about ~5000 ybp and that the 3 “old” specimens above were placed where they were because of C14 dating. But this in turn is based on unwarranted assumptions which make them appear much older than they really are.

Please note from your own post …

Quote:
TSAP-Win offers a combination of both visual (graphical) and statistical cross dating. Statistical models are excellent tools to find possible matches or to verify the dates of pre-dated time series. Nevertheless, the dendrochronologist should never rely on statistical tests alone. He must make his decision form visual and statistical procedures.

… that VISUAL INSPECTION is important.

I have been saying this from the beginning of this debate.

This is not a case of me not wanting to bother to educate myself.

This is a case of many posters here, including you, asserting that you understand the “science” of dendrochronology. I have asserted that most of you (maybe all of you) do not. So this debate is your chance to prove me wrong. It is your chance to demonstrate to me that you HAVE actually observed these tree rings. And you have verified for yourself the soundness of conclusions like Ferguson’s.

I am beginning to think that you have NOT seen Ferguson’s tree rings and that possibly this is first time you have ever gotten this close to the data. Am I right?

In any case, if you want to continue this debate, please provide pictures of Ferguson’s tree rings … the ones specified above … that way, we can all inspect them together.

YOUR QUESTIONS

Quote:
1. If you ended up noticing that science isn’t a value proposition and that the evidence actually leads to the conclusion that individual fundementalist sects of some religions are wrong in their human interpretation of the Bible, would you have to give up Christianity?

2. Please try to follow my logic and at least try to either refute or confirm my analysis of the arguments made by the 4 creationists mentioned so far.

3. Is Don Batten being dishonest to cite Yamaguchi the way he does and equivocate two utterly different trees because they are both pinus? Why or why not.

1) If I find that the scientific against is against Christianity, then yes, I will give up Christianity. I am not interested in believing things for which there is no evidence. But the longer I spend on skeptic forums, the more evidence I find which supports Christianity.
2) Sorry, but I am not interested in what other creationists say for the purposes of this debate. I am interested in finding out if you, and others here, understand Dendrochronology.
3) I doubt it, but I am not prepared to fully analyze this question at the moment since it does not support the goals of this debate.

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