Dave’s Penultimate Post

Author: afdave1 [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:06 am ]
Post subject: Re: Formal Debate: Dendrochronology and C14?

I am still very interested in this “debate.” It’s really not a normal debate to me. I really intended it to be a challenge for someone to demonstrate that Dendrochronology is not circular. To do this, I envisioned someone …

1) Taking me back to the beginnings of the science of Dendro and explaining how the first master sequences were made, what assumptions were made and why
2) Walking me through some of the tree ring data for this original master sequence and explaining how matches are made
3) Present a convincing case as to why tree samples used in this original sequence purported to be 7000 years old or so (contrary to the YEC view) ACTUALLY ARE that old because they do not match to any sequences that we know are LESS THAN 5000 years old (the approximate YEC date for the Flood) and they DO fit the 7000 year old range best.
4) Present a convincing case that the C14 dating procedure of the supposedly >5000 year old samples is sound and contains no holes.

You see … the fact is that the oldest LIVING samples of these trees (Bristlecone pines) are about 4700 years old, just about the age we would expect if they began to grow right after the Flood. So it is highly suspect to me to propose that the dead trees used in Ferguson’s original Master Sequence would be older than that. My suspicion is that certain parts of these dead trees (maybe the inner portion) returned C14 dates in the >5000 year old range, but this does not represent the real age because of the massive C14 ratio upset that would have inevitable taken place during the Flood. Thus having these C14 dates for samples >5000 years old, the investigators apparently felt justified in assuming that they were really that old and thus they looked for tree ring matches in that range and not in the range of <5000 year old trees. As has been pointed out elsewhere (click here and search the page for “Kuniholm”), tree rings often have several different match points

Now BWE has done some of this work and for that I am grateful. He was the one who first pointed me to the original work of C.W. Ferguson, and he has also pointed me to the original Ferguson tree ring data (available for free online) and he pointed me to some nice software that can be used to analyze the rings and look for matches. I keep hoping he will himself use that software and demonstrate the items above, but that’s a lot of work … even for an expert like BWE. I have not yet attempted it myself, but I would like to and have intended to do so.

Hopefully one of us will soon and we can wrap up 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