hooberus
The link you provided http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp#dating links to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp#f1
I fail to see how this could make a Creationist feel better. I mean, Creationists are constantly besieged with accusations of presuppositions, and to read a confirmation that Creationists ARE presuppositionalists is a little distressing for any Creationist trying to lend their opinion scientific credibility;
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
This is a all-encompassing claim - not one related to ONE particular theory. No examination of each case on each case's merits, just a presupposition. I'd me most disappointed seeing this if I wanted to add scientific credibility to Creationistic arguments.
Rest assured, some 'science' is dealt with;
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
However, this seemingly pivotal evidence is flawed. For a start, there is NO REFERENCE. It also relates to a different species of pine, one that is a fast-growing (which is why it is a 'plantation pine') to one that is chronically slow-growing. The writer, refreshingly, has a relevant Ph.D so such sloppy science, missing out references and making tenuous comparisons, is surprising. Maybe his specialism (mung beans and cultivated fruits) explains this?
This paragraph is very worrying;
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
The reason why growth rings look the way they do is that they are essentially records of the level of moisture and growth. New growth in spring is characterised by large cells; as available moisture drops through the season, cell size drops. Growth stops during winter, thus the new large cells of the following spring form sufficient contrast to form a 'ring' or growth band.
Less contrasting seasons and lots of moisture would have led to THE OPPOSITE of what is claimed. If the seasons were more-or-less the same and wet, there would be LESS discernible rings due to the smaller variation in cell size these conditions would give.
I do not understand how anyone, even a non-specialist in dendrochronology, could make such a glaring error. Is it possible that this writer's initial assumptions;
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
... are drawing him to, maybe honestly, make careless assumptions and unsupported leaps due to the underlying pathology of belief?
Sadly this behaviour continues;
The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so.
The basis of this claim is (why am I not surprised) the assumption that the Flood occurred, and that therefore C12/C14 ratios would not be in equilibrium required for a set 'start ratio' of C12/C14 when an organism stops respiring (and thus accurate dating by determining how this ratio has changed). The C12 would all be buried, whereas C14 would carry on being produced from Nitrogen. Thus, it is claimed, trees just after the assumed flood would appear older.
Errrr... for a start C14 would be buried along with C12, as if it is 'organic' material, it has respired and contains a C12/C14 mix. It is misleading for the writer not to mention this... either that or he is hypothesising about things he has an inadequate knowledge of... perhaps only studying until HE feels he has vindicated the position he had ALREADY arrived at before study. Not very sceintific.
If this organic debris decayed, any gaseous products of decay would contain the same C12/C14 mix, thus respiring things would have the same ratio AFTER the flood as BEFORE it. So the writer's hypothesis fails totally.
He is wrong on more than one level too; the MORE C14 a sample has the YOUNGER it is, as it is the DECAY of C14 from a known start ratio that allows age to be determined. When all C14 is gone in a sample, it means it is too old to date by that method.
If a mass removal of organic matter containing C12 DID change the ratio (which it couldn't as organic carbon also contains C12 and C14), then the removal of C12 and continued production of C14 would lead to MORE C14 than expected and less C12, which would means things appeared YOUNGER than they would otherwise appear. He says it would make them appear OLDER.
This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating.
Lastly, but by no means least, he attacks the dating of Bristlecone Pines (where there are trees old enough to date an event by themselves) using data related to the difficulty of matching sequences of trees to date an event (where succesive generations of trees are used to date an event by the match of the 'last years' pattern with a successive generations 'first years' pattern). This is massively misleading and I am surprised someone with a Ph.d would be so sloppy.
Being guided by someone who is either dishonest or incompetent in the field of science he is hypothesising on would seem to be foolish at the best of times. And idiotic the rest. And hooberus, this is NOT the first time I have shown you either DISHONESTY or INCOMPETENCE displayed on Creationistic sites... in fact, last time it was answeringenesis too. To your credit you eventually conceeded part of my point.
Despite having this website shown to be unreliable, you persist in using it to back up your beliefs. Is this "building a tower on sand", or "a dog returning to its vomit?"
Sadly you may well ignore this, or simply be evasive and dismissive, using some excuse or another to justify (to yourself) your failure to accept answeringenesis is NOT a reputable source for scientific information.
If you are knowingly using a persistently inaccurate source of information, you have to take responsibility for using that inaccurate information. You cannot plead ignorance.
Would Jesus use a scroll that, when examined, was persistently shown to be wrong? Would he carry on using a scroll that suited his beliefs even though he knew it was persistently wrong?
I really don't think so, and we might just be seeing an instance where an atheistic humanist shows greater faith in Jesus than a professed Christian Creation Apologist.
Sadly I doubt you will answer these questions, even though they are more than pertinant...
