BWE’s 4th Post

Author: BWE_the real_one. [ Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:

“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.

Quote:
David Rohl has pointed out some serious problems with dendrochronology …

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:

Quote:

Note the highlighted portion above …

[1]

Quote:
Thus one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links which connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies [and by inference, all the other sequences] are based on incorrect wiggle-matches which have resulted from the phenomenon of auto-correlation.

And further questions would be …

[2] Why does Mazar reject the dendro curve? How about the wiggle-match problems? How about auto-correlation? How about inflated t-values? How about the Sweet Track Chronology being withdrawn? The South German sequence abandoned? Why did Kuniholm reject the date with the highest t-value? And so on?

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.
(Rohl)

Quote:
Bibliography:
Mazar, A. — 1990: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10000-586 BCE (New
York).

link

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:

Quote:
We cannot know for sure why the various dendrochronology calibration curves cause this problem.

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:

Quote:
Unlike the dendrochronologies of the sequoia and bristlecone pine where it was possible to read the rings of individual trees over a period of a few thousand years, the European and recently developed Turkish dendrochronologies have had to be constructed from many shorter lived trees, whose rings have had to be ‘wiggle-matched.’ By cross-matching sequences of narrow and wide growth-rings from different logs the trees can be overlapped — thus extending the chronology backwards through time. This is a straightforward technique and should be relatively easy to implement. However, a number of difficulties have recently come to light.

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:

Quote:
Another notable weakness in the construction of the European oak chronologies is the use of statistics. In 1991, J. Lasken raised the problem of inflated t-values.15 A t-value is given to a wiggle-match on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring patterns. In 1986, D. Yamaguchi recognised that trees tend to auto-correlate — that is they possess the ability to cross-match with each other in several places within the tree-ring sequence. He took a douglas fir log known to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Indeed he found 113 significant candidate wiggle-matches throughout the whole of the AD tree-ring sequence.16

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:

02yama
02-1YAMA
[03YAMA

Hmmm. Makes you wonder don’t it? Let’s move on:

Quote:
It is therefore interesting to note that a number of the crucial dendrochronology sequences — for example the Garry Bog 2 (GB2) to Southwark sequences which connect the Belfast absolute chronology (i.e. the AD sequence) to the ‘floating’ Belfast long chronology (i.e. the BC sequence), and ultimately used to redate the South German chronology, have t-values of around 4. These t-values are considerably lower than those obtained for some of the historically incorrect dates produced by
Yamaguchi’s experiment. Thus one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links which connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies are based on incorrect wiggle-matches which have resulted from the phenomenon of auto-correlation.

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.

Quote:
[3] FERGUSON’S STUDY IS FUNDAMENTAL AND VERY REVEALING
Ferguson’s study analyzed in my last post cannot be dismissed as “an old study.” It seems foundational and is referred to often by later investigators and seems to exemplify the methodology used by all other dendrochronologists, namely …CHRONOLOGY BUILDING PROCEDURE
1) Make an arbitrary assumption that C14 concentration has been more or less constant for at least the past 100,000 years, which requires denial of the Global Flood and its effects on C14 ~4750 years ago
2) Select “good” trees which “date” by C14 to the approximate time frame for which you want to build your chronology.
3) Look for matching patterns which supposedly indicate that the corresponding rings occurred during the same year.

Oh boy. Remember this:

Quote:
I’m stubbornly committed to the DATA … not majorities … not authorities … not public opinion. DATA.

??
Does that statement square with your #1? It seems like the assumption that there was a flood is the only assumption here. See, looking at pure data, one wouldn’t need to have any assumptions. Why do you need to assume that 14C has been constant when we can, with no assumptions, measure 14C levels from dateable objects and look to see what they are? BTW, this has been done.

Quote:

Once this is done, I suppose that various wooden items such a roof beams from ancient sites can be placed in the approximate time frame by C14, then placed more accurately by matching rings in the master sequence.

As far as I can tell, this is the supposed value of dendrochronology “calibraton” of C14.

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.

Quote:

Note that physicist SAWells (PhD in earth sciences from Cambridge) confirmed point (2) above in this Forum in the Dendro Comment thread …

Quote:
SAWells Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:43 pm
a) Samples are often roughly ordered using C14, simply so that you don’t waste time trying to ring-match a ~10000YO sample with a modern one. This rough ordering is not the final date assigned to the sample.

So?

Quote:
OBVIOUS (TO ME) PROBLEMS
1) the HUGE assumption that there was no Global Flood calls into question ALL C14 dates >~3000 yo. So the “rough ordering” of samples >3000 yo is highly suspect.
2) Even if (1) were not a glaring problem, Rohl’s discussion above is very telling and raises numerous questions which cannot be hand waved away.

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.

Quote:

[4]Do you get the picture?

It seems that if we strip away all the pre-conceptions of uniform C14 and >10,000 year history of civilization, what we have left is some extremely questionable assumptions applied to some not-very-robust data sets to come up with some very shaky conclusions.

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.

Quote:
Not the way I like doing science.

I know.

Quote:

Now, BWE … please …

I am not interested in later papers at the moment. I am INITIALLY interested understanding MASTER SEQUENCE BUILDING.

Ferguson seems to be a key player in this as basically the “foundation layer” for all that followed.

I should certainly like to see hi-res photos of the 17 samples he used to build that chronology pictured in my last post. [5]Have you seen these samples? [6]Any way to get hi-resolution photos of them? [7]Are the hi-res photos published in some paper somewhere that I can obtain? And how about my questions on the Comment Thread? [7]Can you explain Mean Sensitivity=0.33 and Serial Correlation=0.46? What does this mean?

Thanks. Over to you.

Answers to questions 5, 6, 7.
5.No. Why? I would use databases to check my own samples against because all that work has already been done. You can find important data here.

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.
Main Office: 105 West Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721-0058 USA
phone: +1 520 621 1608
fax: +1 520 621 8229.

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.

ferg4

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:

afdave1 wrote:
What you will find is that the 7104 yr Master Sequence is composed of 17 samples represented in the graph below (from the paper)[omitted].
More details about the samples can be found in Table 2 from this paper, shown below.[omitted]Starting with Ferguson’s abstract, I note that he says …

Quote:
The [7104-year] chronology was extended backward in time by incorporating tree-ring series from living trees up to 4600 years old, as well as from standing snags, fallen trees, large remnants, and eroded fragments.

OK. The obvious question is “How did you know that particular samples should fall in the 4600 – 7104 year old range?”

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::
ferg3

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:

Quote:

Well after careful reading, I don’t get a clear answer. But there are some clues. There is one clue in the following quote (also from the abstract) …

Quote:
The availability of datable wood in the 9000-year range has been indicated by radiocarbon analysis.

9000-year range? I thought we were going back to 7104 years ago. I’m not sure why he mentions this. BWE? Can you explain? Is he simply referring to later studies which extend the present 7104 year series back another 2000 years? Or is he saying that THESE samples, which are used as the basis for the 7104 year chronology are placed there because of radiocarbon analysis??

In any case, Dr. Batten’s point is well taken, whether this statement refers to THIS chronology, or to a 2000 year extension of this chronology, this is a big deal. Let me highlight this again …The availability of datable wood in the 9000-year range has been indicated by radiocarbon analysis.Wow. There it is. Right there in the abstract.

Exactly what Dr. Batten wrote…Wait a minute! I thought that Dendro was an INDEPENDENT calibration technique for calibrating Radiocarbon Dating. Now you are telling me that we FIRST determine what date range to assign to the wood by RC dating, then we turn around and use this “independent” tree sequence to calibrate RC dates??

Wow. Just wow. So it seems that Dr. Batten is right.

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.

Quote:

WOW again.

Now, BWE … I am happy for you to try to show me why this is not really what it looks like it is. But what it LOOKS like is …

1) The Radiocarbon folks were eager to come up with “calibration” for their work
2) They latched on to Ferguson and his new Dendrochronology.
3) They “helped” Ferguson pick samples of the earliest possible age
4) These “early age” samples were determined to be “early age” by radiocarbon dating
5) Ferguson took those samples and matched them up as best he could
6) But as Yamaguchi (1986) showed later, auto-correlation of rings is a major problem, so it appears quite possible that the selected samples could fit MANY date ranges
7) The Radiocarbon people were happy because now they had their “calibration”
8) It seems the radiocarbon people don’t care about Yamaguchi

1. Once again, that was the point.
2. see 1
3. I don’t care if you are stupid but I do care if you use your stupidity for evil. No they didn’t.
4. Wrong. They were picked for appearance of age and used after statistical correlation put them in the master sequence.
5. That’s what the paper was about.
6. And you are using the new, more refined and precise math to prove what exactly? That it only gets more exact?
7. Once again, right. THAT’S THE POINT.
8. Only in your bible-thumped head. Yamaguchi refined the technique! HE MADE IT BETTER.

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:

Quote:
“Sensitive” tree growth: * High degree of annual variation
* Wide and narrow rings intermixed through time
* Limiting growth factor (e.g., rainfall) is highly variable year to year
* Especially true for harsh sites (steep/rocky for moisture sensitivity; see figure at left)
* Reasonably sensitive ring growth is good:
o Matching patterns of relatively wide and narrows rings across trees is
easier when ample variation exists”Complacent” tree growth:

* Low degree of annual variation
* Rings are roughly the same for many years consecutively
* limiting growth factor is not variable from year to year
* Especially true for benign sites (flat with deep soil for moisture complacency; see figure at left)
* Complacent ring growth can be difficult to crossdate:
o matching patterns of relatively wide and narrows rings across trees is
harder when not much variation exists

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).

Advertisements

Dave’s 4th Post

Author: afdave1 [ Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:04 am ]
Post subject:

GOOD NEWS: A DETAILED, UNDERSTANDABLE EXPLANATION OF DENDRO
overlap

Finally … I’ve been given a link which really explains dendrochronology very well. Thank you BWE. The above graphic is one of many that appear here …

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/skeletonplo … ssdate.htm

They even have nifty little Java applets that let you play around with plotting.

Very cool!

I would highly recommend going through the whole thing.

That’s the good news.

***************************

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 (See below)

Quote:
[AFDave wrote] Now, BWE … please …

I am not interested in later papers at the moment. I am INITIALLY interested understanding MASTER SEQUENCE BUILDING.

Ferguson seems to be a key player in this as basically the “foundation layer” for all that followed.

I should certainly like to see hi-res photos of the 17 samples he used to build that chronology pictured in my last post. [5]Have you seen these samples? [6]Any way to get hi-resolution photos of them? [7]Are the hi-res photos published in some paper somewhere that I can obtain? And how about my questions on the Comment Thread? [7]Can you explain Mean Sensitivity=0.33 and Serial Correlation=0.46? What does this mean?

Thanks. Over to you.

BWE…

Quote:
Answers to questions 5, 6, 7.
5.No. Why? I would use databases to check my own samples against because all that work has already been done. You can find important data here.

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.
Main Office: 105 West Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721-0058 USA
phone: +1 520 621 1608
fax: +1 520 621 8229.

[Snip explanation about sensitivity]

Now why do I say this is the bad news? Well because BWE answers “NO” to Questions 5, 6 and 7, yet he trust the experts implicitly. Now I thought scientists were supposed to DIS-trust everything and question everything and try to prove everything wrong. That’s what numerous people here have told me anyway. So BWE … why have you not asked to see these samples? Why has not SOMEONE asked to see these samples? [It turns out they have … see below] Why are these samples not available for other scientists to examine? Isn’t that a little bit “close to the vest”? What are they hiding?

Creationist Walter Brown (PhD in Mech. Eng from MIT) was the one that alerted me to this little … *Ahem* … problem … in his footnotes …

Quote:
“The entire chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which [C. W. Ferguson] has refused to allow critical study of the raw data.” For details, see Herbert C. Sorensen, “Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976, p. 5.

So … being the conscientious creationist that I am I pulled up my archives of CRSQ (yes, I subscribe to all the leading publications on both sides of the aisle) and Voila! Here’s the article referred to by Brown.

It is written by Herbert C. Sorensen, Ph.D., who is [was at that time] a biochemist and president of Columbia Laboratories in Corbett, Oregon. He is also a Research Fellow of the Geoscience Research Institute in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

I’m sure many of you will tune him out now that you know he’s from GRISDA, but nonetheless, I’ll tell you what he says anyway …

Quote:
Herbert C. Sorensen, “Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976, p. 5.

Validity of cross matching signatures has been well established in specific applications. It has not been established in the bristlecone pine chronology. Major difficulties of the bristlecone pine chronology will be discussed in order of significance:

1. Cross matching is subjective and largely depends on visual inspection and comparison; with statistical analysis
after a cross match has been identified. The whole thing depends on the judgement of a highly skilled, trained but fallible investigator.

The magnitude of this problem can be assessed by considering the difficulty of matching a specimen with several hundred rings against a composite of several thousand rings. So great is the difficulty in finding cross matches that the wood is first radiocarbon dated to determine its approximate location in the chronology.5

I have these facts in writing from the original investigators who cite the bristlecone pines dates as being in excellent agreement with radiocarbon dates.6,7  Of course they
agree. Since the bristlecone pine dates are at least partially determined by radiocarbon dates it is essentially a case of circular reasoning.

A colleague and I, under the auspices of the Geoscience Research Institute, have attempted to circumvent the subjectiveness
of cross dating by developing a method for systematically searching for cross matches by computer. Our results have been encouraging and have shown the feasibility
of eliminating the subjective element.

2. The rings width patterns in the bristlecone pines are not sufficiently distinctive. The rings are extremely thin (as many as 100 per cm) with a high percentage missing. (See
reference 4). The most distinctive rings are the thinnest and these are of course the ones most likely to be missing. If the very thin rings are removed from any specimen the
result is a non-distinctive pattern termed complacent. Complacent specimens are unsuitable for cross matching.

In the case of pine alpha, one of the more famous members of the bristlecone pine chronology, if the nine missing
rings are left out the result is a complacent specimen.8 In fact, nearly half of the components of the bristlecone pine
chronology are insensitive and relatively complacent, even with “missing” rings included.

3. The entire chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which has refused to allow critical study of the raw data. It is a fortunate scientist who finds his work of such interest to a colleague that much time and effort is spent in critical appraisal of the work. Because of the farreaching
implications of the bristlecone pine chronology to radiocarbon dating, archaeology, climatology, etc., it is essential
that every facet be critically appraised.

I have dedicated a substantial amount of time to such an endeavor but have been considerably hampered by the lack
of available data. Refusal by the original investigators to make such data available seems inexplicable. Surely the cause of science cannot suffer by focusing opposing viewpoints
on raw data.

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?

REFERENCES
1 Stallings, W. S. 1973. Tree-Ring Bulletin 3:27.
2 Sorenson. , H. C. 1973. The ages of bristlecone pine Pensee, 3(2):15-18
3 Stokes, M. A. , and T. L. Smiley 1968. An introduction to tree
ring dating. University of Chicago Press.
4 Ferguson, C. W. 1969. Tree-Ring Bulletin 29: 1.
5 Ferguson, C. W. 1970. Personal communication, 3 March.
6 Ralph, E. K., and H. N. Michael 1974. Twenty-five years of
radiocarbon dating, American Scientist, 62 (5): 553-560.
7 Libby, W. F. 1972 Dating by radiocarbon, Accounts of chemical
research, 5 (9):289-295.
8 Ferguson, C. W. 1970. Personal communication, 23 April.
9 La Marche, V. C., Jr., and T. P. Harlan 1973. Accuracy of tree
ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon
time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research, 78 (36):8849-8858.

This was 30 years ago, guys and gals. Sorenson was asking the very same questions I have been asking 30 years ago!!

****************************************

So BWE, my friend … your a nice guy and I’m sure you are very good at what you do.

But it looks like you’ve got some hard questions to answer.

Can you answer them?

****************************************
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

Quote:
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?

1) From the Ferguson paper. There are only 17 specimens and no one has been allowed to examine the raw data.
2) Yes. None of the ones I have cited use dishonesty of any kind.
3) Easily. Just as I have explained above. Yes, we must also look at the other methods, but now we are examining dendro.

BWE’s 5th Post

Author: BWE_the real_one. [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:

Quote:
“I’m stubbornly committed to the DATA … not majorities … not authorities … not public opinion. DATA.”

Dave, 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.

afdave1 wrote:
Finally … I’ve been given a link which really explains dendrochronology very well. Thank you BWE.
They even have nifty little Java applets that let you play around with plotting.

er… you’re welcome. You should try Pac Man. It’s got a nifty litlle guy that you move around a digital maze. ???

Dave, your hubris is unfounded, unbounded and ungrounded.

But let’s go ahead and add one more creationist to the list.

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 (See below)

Well, note the underlined parts:
seuss

seuss link

Sorenson is wrong QED 🙂

Quote:
[AFDave wrote]

Quote:
Answers to questions 5, 6, 7.
Quote=BWE:
5.No. Why? I would use databases to check my own samples against because all that work has already been done. You can find important data here.

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.
Main Office: 105 West Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721-0058 USA
phone: +1 520 621 1608
fax: +1 520 621 8229.

[Snip explanation about sensitivity]

Quote=Dave:

Now why do I say this is the bad news? Well because BWE answers “NO” to Questions 5, 6 and 7, yet he trust the experts implicitly. Now I thought scientists were supposed to DIS-trust everything and question everything and try to prove everything wrong. That’s what numerous people here have told me anyway. So BWE … why have you not asked to see these samples? Why has not SOMEONE asked to see these samples? [It turns out they have … see below] Why are these samples not available for other scientists to examine? Isn’t that a little bit “close to the vest”? What are they hiding?

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 apologize 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. My answer to question 7 seems relevant. Do you have a specific objection?

Quote:
Herbert C. Sorensen, Ph.D., who is [was at that time] a biochemist and president of Columbia Laboratories in Corbett, Oregon. He is also a Research Fellow of the Geoscience Research Institute in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

I’m sure many of you will tune him out now that you know he’s from GRISDA, but nonetheless, I’ll tell you what he says anyway …

Quote:
Herbert C. Sorensen, “Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976, p. 5.

Validity of cross matching signatures has been well established in specific applications. It has not been established in the bristlecone pine chronology. Major difficulties of the bristlecone pine chronology will be discussed in order
of significance:

1. Cross matching is subjective and largely depends on visual inspection and comparison; with statistical analysis after a cross match has been identified. The whole thing depends on the judgement of a highly skilled, trained but fallible investigator.

[1-a]The magnitude of this problem can be assessed by considering the difficulty of matching a specimen with several hundred rings against a composite of several thousand rings. So great is the difficulty in finding cross matches that the wood is first radiocarbon dated to determine its approximate location in the chronology.5

I have these facts in writing from the original investigators who cite the bristlecone pines dates as being in excellent agreement with radiocarbon dates.6,7 Of course they agree. Since the bristlecone pine dates are at least partially determined by radiocarbon dates it is essentially a case of
circular reasoning.

A colleague and I, under the auspices of the Geoscience Research Institute, have attempted to circumvent the subjectiveness of cross dating by developing a method for systematically searching for cross matches by computer. Our results have been encouraging and have shown the feasibility of eliminating the subjective element.

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 exhibit high sensitivity and a perfect cross-match to be included in the master sequence.

Quote:
2. The rings width patterns in the bristlecone pines are not sufficiently distinctive. The rings are extremely thin (as many as 100 per cm) with a high percentage missing. (See reference 4). The most distinctive rings are the thinnest and these are of course the ones most likely to be missing. If the very thin rings are removed from any specimen the result is a non-distinctive pattern termed complacent. Complacent specimens are unsuitable for cross matching.

In the case of pine alpha, one of the more famous members of the bristlecone pine chronology, if the nine missing rings are left out the result is a complacent specimen.8 In fact, nearly half of the components of the bristlecone pine chronology are insensitive and relatively complacent, even
with “missing” rings included.

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

Quote:
3. The entire chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which has refused to allow critical study of the raw data. It is a fortunate scientist who finds his work of such interest to a colleague that much time and effort is spent in critical appraisal of the work. Because of the farreaching implications of the bristlecone pine chronology to radiocarbon dating, archaeology, climatology, etc., it is essential that every facet be critically appraised.

I have dedicated a substantial amount of time to such an endeavor but have been considerably hampered by the lack of available data. Refusal by the original investigators to make such data available seems inexplicable. Surely the cause of science cannot suffer by focusing opposing viewpoints on raw data.

See above.

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?

So BWE, my friend … your a nice guy and I’m sure you are very good at what you do.

But it looks like you’ve got some hard questions to answer.

Can you answer them?

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.

Quote:

****************************************ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

Quote=BWE:
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?

Quote=Dave

1) From the Ferguson paper. There are only 17 specimens and no one has been allowed to examine the raw data.
2) Yes. None of the ones I have cited use dishonesty of any kind.
3) Easily. Just as I have explained above. Yes, we must also look at the other methods, but now we are examining dendro.

Re: answer 1: wrong. see above.
Re: answer 2. If you do not specifically address my claims, you will be sad to see my final post. So far, I have demonstrated intentional obfuscation and dishonesty in all of them. Would you care to comment?
Re: answer 3: Could you please explain how this addresses the question???

My 3 questions:
1. Why do you suppose the bristlecone data was cross-correlated 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?

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.

BWE’s 6th Post

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

afdave1 wrote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:

BWE’s RESPONSES TO SORENSON’S OBJECTIONSOBJECTION 1

Quote=BWE:
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.
Quote=Dave

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.

ferg_comp

and
Ferg_Statistic_Analysis

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

Ferg_basics

Quote:

OBJECTION 2

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.

Quote:

[OBJECTION 4

Quote=Dave:
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).
READ THE LAST EXCERPT POSTED ABOVE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IT SAYS.
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.
ONCE AGAIN READ THE PAPER GODDAMNIT
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 … 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.

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.

circular

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.
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?

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH GGGG HHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHHHHHH FFFFFFFFF TTTTTTTT!!!!!!! because they are 12 inde-god-damn-pendent sources that ALL GIVE THE SAME RESULTS

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?

TO MAKE STUPID FUCKING MORON CREATIONISTS ASK QUESTIONS.

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.

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.

Dave’s 6th Post

Author: afdave1 [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:

WAITING FOR SOME RAW DATA ON THE FERGUSON MASTER CHRONOLOGY
Dendro_7104yr_seq

BWE … you gave me links to get the raw data so I can see how Ferguson built the Master Chronology above.

However, the links didn’t work.

Could you please supply this data for me? It would help support your claim that Dendrochronology is a valid science and is not based upon arbitrary assumptions and circular reasoning.

That’s really all I have to say on this post. If this cannot be supplied, then I am ready to conclude this debate.

Quote:
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.

1) No, I don’t. Sorry.
2) No. I still think it is circular and based upon arbitrary assumptions. I think I have shown this.
3) No. I think you are mistaken on this. I think others have told you that creationists are dishonest and you have accepted this uncritically.

BWE’s 7th Post

Author: BWE_the real_one. [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:

afdave1 wrote:
WAITING FOR SOME RAW DATA ON THE FERGUSON MASTER CHRONOLOGY

BWE … you gave me links to get the raw data so I can see how Ferguson built the Master Chronology above. However, the links didn’t work. Could you please supply this data for me? It would help support your claim that Dendrochronology is a valid science and is not based upon arbitrary assumptions and circular reasoning.

That’s really all I have to say on this post. If this cannot be supplied, then I am ready to conclude this debate.

Although your ignorance is not my problem, nor is it a challenge to any science, this debate is not a debate in the normal sense of the word so…

Well, ok.

Quote:
995516 1 WHITE MOUNTAINS MASTER CHRONOLOGY PILO 604
995516 2 CALIFORNIA BRISTLECONE PINE 03724-11810 -5141 1962
995516 3 C. W. FERGUSON, EDMUND SCHULMAN, H. C. FRITTS
99551-51419990 09990 09990 09990 09990 09990 09990 09990 09990 01908 1
99551-51401654 11078 11919 11244 1 582 1 729 1 893 11009 1 881 1 670 1
99551-5130 376 1 771 1 772 1 444 1 676 1 727 1 613 1 780 1 848 1 616 1
99551-51201452 1 518 1 838 1 604 1 942 11484 11267 11354 1 746 1 169 1
99551-5110 562 11160 11179 11456 11424 1 894 1 844 1 828 11418 1 624 1
99551-51001007 11513 11795 11380 11207 11052 11405 1 246 1 882 1 707 1
99551-5090 991 11082 11404 11140 1 839 1 644 1 914 1 969 11511 11172 1
99551-50801011 1 669 11269 11236 11001 11313 11334 11484 11340 11361 1

This is merely the first few lines of the data. The rest is available here.

A host of software options for analyzing the data is available here. You might like this one because it has “amazing graphics capabilities as well as numerous options for crossdating and standardization”.

From the Crossdating link in the software description page:

Quote:
TSAP-Win: Cross Dating
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.

The cross-date procedure optionally uses two output features: · The output listing (text format) includes the statistical parameters calculated for all suggested fitting positions. · The extended Math Graph provides a graphical view of the sample and reference series. It allows on-screen shifting and editing of series providing the statistical parameters of each sample reference pair. Within the cross-date window the user may select either both or just one of the output features.

A screenshot:

[lost]
which is the graph output. And:

[lost]
which is the text output. You might notice a similarity between this and the fergeson data.

The crossdating page concludes with:

Quote:
In dendrochronology two main concepts are used to express the quality of accordance between time series: Gleichlaeufigkeit and/or t-values. While the t-statistic is a widely known test for correlation significance, Gleichlaeufigkeit was developed as a special tool for cross-dating of tree-ring series (ECKSTEIN and BAUCH 1969). These concepts are characterised by a different sensitivity to tree-ring patterns. While Gleichlaeufigkeit represents the overall accordance of two series, t-values are sensitive to extreme values, such as event years. A combination of both is realized in the Cross-Date Index (CDI). Since the CDI is a very powerful parameter in cross-dating, the possible matches are ordered by descending CDI in the output.

But you don’t have to stop there.

Quote:
AGECRV ARSTAN ARSTANL CASE COF12K
COFECHA CRONOL DOSXMSF DOSXNT DPL
EARLAT EDRM EVENT EXTRAP FHCONV
FMT JOLTS OLDCORE OUTBREAK PCA
RECPC RESPO RMATSG SAMDEP SCATTER
SCRPLT SCRSAV SIGLOF SPANFIRE SSA
SSIZ XTRLST XTRMOD YUX

Those are all different software packages available to perform various kinds of tests on the data. Just follow that first link and you can buy any one of them and perform your very own tests on Fergusons data. Maybe you can do some testing to find out if forest fires are more intense, less intense or about the same statistically over the last roughly 7000 years. I’m curious about that one. Maybe you need different data. I don’t know since I didn’t check. If you are going to do that,

Quote:
FHX2 analyzes event chronologies such as those related to fire scars and other fire history studies as developed from tree-ring data. The software provides means for (1) entering and storing fire history data, (2) graphing and plotting these data, (3) statistically analyzing the fire history, and (4) analyzing the relationship between fire and climate. Statistical analyses include fire interval tests, seasonality summaries, and tests that detect changes in temporal or spatial aspects of fire regimes. The software is primarily known for its strong graphics capabilities. Henri D. Grissino-Mayer developed this software and is responsible for its support and distribution. Note that this software must be purchased to satisfy a distribution license agreement with a third party vendor.

looks promising. There are many more made by a wide variety of vendors who employ experts in the field of dendrochronology. Which, interestingly enough, brings us back to the first point I made that the title of this debate is a retarded way to look at an established science. There are so many different dendrochronology master sequences, analytical tools, labs, for profit vendors, entire departments at universities and ways to specialize in dendrochronology out there that to question whether the science is valid demonstrates nothing other than the ignorance of the questioner. Or, perhaps, the dishonesty.

All that software actually points out a very important thing in terms of this “debate”. Dendro is not only a valid science but circularity couldn’t possible encapsulate the breadth of what is being studied and the results all match each other. In terms of 14C dating, I already demonstrated that it is not only not circular but corroborated at this point by hundreds and hundreds of independent analyses using at least a dozen unrelated techniques and all matching just exactly how you would expect. Not one data set has cast any doubt on the reliability of dendro. It is not only not circular but it utterly disproves your idea of a young Earth (May we all appreciate how she recycles our waste to nourish us again). It isn’t the specific application of any one of these things, it is the fact that they all give the same results. Questioning those data independent of their consilient results is not useful for criticizing the dating part of the results. Unless, that is, you were trying to obfuscate. Which leads to my next issue.

C.E. Don Batten does in fact know the difference between sensitivity and complacency. He knows quite well why Bristlcones are not equivalent to not just Monterey pines, but, more eggregiously, to farm raised monterey pines. He utterly and unquestionably intentionally misleads his readers with the intention of giving them a false understanding of fact. In short, he is trying to make up an argument that will hold back the flood gates of data and science and intentionally misinform a specific group of people that will help fight against scientific learning and indeed a learning of what Earth (May we merge with her spirit with every orgasm) and sky actually reveal about our position in the universe. Woodmorappe in trying to make it look like we could never tell if the CO2 a tree absorbs came from volcanic gasses is blatantly and patently lying as I pointed out in my second post. Rohl cites Yamaguchi as somehow invalidating dendrochronology which is exactly wrong for the reasons I laid out above multiple times. Rohl had the paper to cite it, right? If so, he knowingly lied about its conclusions. If not, he dishonestly cited material he never read. Either way all creationists so far have used lies to build a case on. Then, inexplicably since you let my demolitions of your first three creationists stand, you pop up with a fourth, Sorenson. Surprise surprise, a blatant lie. “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. ” Which actually, I just noticed, tries to put all the output of the entire laboratory under Fergeson’s watchful eye. Just so you know, I’ve talked with some people there and it’s a pretty big lab. That is probably another intentional obfuscation although it may just be me looking for them. It doesn’t matter, I just made him a liar on this page by providing the data.

The lab is quite willing to let you tour the facility, take pictures of the master sequence, use their pictures etc. but for them to expend any resources on educating you, you will need to pay them. That is how it works. Bet you can’t look at the material in the ag lab at KSU either. Anyway, once again, totally irrelevant to this debate.

Quote:
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.

1) No, I don’t. Sorry.

Because insinuating that a major scientific field is not practicing valid science is a serious display of ignorance. Do you understand now?

Quote:
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.

2) No. I still think it is circular and based upon arbitrary assumptions. I think I have shown this.

No you have not. It is not circular because multiple, totally independent methods of cross-checking were employed. I’m sorr but your argument from ignorance does not, repeat does not help your case. I provided that Data, the specimens are viewable, the lab is at a university so students are exposed to it daily, and there are scores and scores of scientists around the world independently using the techniques pioneered by ferguson and douglas but refined countless times since then by countless researchers and getting the same results. Sorry, ferguson is dead, he contributed quite a bit to the science but 14C calibration is only further corroborated by dendrochronology, it is not reliant on it and dendro is not reliant on 14C calibration at all. That isn’t even a closed geometric shape let alone circular.

Quote:
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.

3) No. I think you are mistaken on this. I think others have told you that creationists are dishonest and you have accepted this uncritically.

Dave, where did I use “others'” ideas to establish that the creationist you have so far supplied are ALL DEMONSTRABLY LYING? I think I simply pointed out the lie and the information to establish the lie.

************************************
Conclusion: Creationism is an attempt to hide the truth and, at least in the science of dendrochronology, universally resorts to intentional lies to do so.

*************************************

My Questions:

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.