lundi 5 décembre 2016

Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

This is, first, from quora:

Graeme Shimmin
The tree thing is IMO impossible to refute.

In the case of the dating of the Bristlecone pines it's not like there's some complex scientific process involved - it's counting tree rings.

[two comments further down]

... Counting tree rings is not complicated and can be done by anyone. ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Only true for pretty young trees with pretty thin layers of rings to count.

And these are not the question.

Graeme Shimmin
I’ve never seen any evidence from a non-creationist source suggesting that counting tree rings is hard. Do you have any evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One provided as argument by a creationist one, but obvious once you think of it. You fell a tree. You count the rings from bark to core. No problem at all - but if you fell a tree like a woodcutter, it can’t be that old.

A double ring (light and dark) might be sth like 1.5 to 2.5 mm. This means that a tree even one thousand years old should have a thickness from core to bark of 1000 double rings, that is of 1.5 to 2.5 meters. This means the diameter of the tree is 3 to 5 meter thick. Try to fell that and count the tree rings?

I suppose those who counted a tree as 5000 years old had gone by thickness (7.5 to to 12.5 m) - but they would have seen thickness from outside and this leaves the question how far the outermost core is in. It happens that trees grow together and what if outermost of a composite tree only has its core 3 meters in from bark?

This one is pretty commonsense.

You mentioned only counting, but matching is also a problem. Two trees that are contemporary do not have exactly the same pattern of rings, and so the scientist is faced with the question exactly how much divergence is acceptable before declaring a match.

If - as is the case with old pieces of wood - the trees are reduced to fragmentary pieces, these can be so small that identification of a unique pattern only then but not more recently then instead, can be a real problem.

I had a reference ready on this one, but lost it, I recommend you research in “tree ring dating” as done by specialists who celebrate their breakthroughs and so, that will show a diagram of convergence and divergence of certain samples in a bottleneck, which will give you an idea how delicate the question of matches is.

I'll provide an example myself.

A Sequence of Ruins in the Flagstaff Area Dated by Tree-Rings

A Sequence of Ruins in the Flagstaff Area Dated by Tree-Rings
Publication Type
Year of Publication
Harlan, TP
Thompson, RH
Academic Department
University of Arizona
A collection of 4263 archaeological tree-ring specimens from the region around Flagstaff, Arizona, was examined by means of the dendrochronological method. Although some of the specimens had been dated previously, the majority of the collection had never been studied. This analysis yielded 596 outside dates. Although these new dates do not differ greatly from previous dates obtained from previous dates obtained from this collection they have made possible certain refinements in the dating of the phases in the archaeological sequence for the region.

I'll give some samples of specimen numbers (SN) with inside and outside dates (ID/OD) (when viewing other, pdf'd link for same thesis):

(Page 48)
Table 14, site NA 1139
SN F 1509
ID 815 OD 898
SN 1503
ID 814 OD 889
SN 1505
ID 809 OD 888
SN 1504
ID 812 OD 882
SN 1506
ID 814 OD 872

These five specimens span only, together, 90 years, of which 58 years overlap all specimina.

With such overlap and so short spans, dendro might seem even reliable.

But go back over millennia, you get longer spans with shorter or non-extant overlap and overlaps also from different areas, so one cannot count on all having grown in same microclimate even approximately.

In the Flagstaff area, the samples were together because used in buildings of an inhabited area whose inhabitants took the building material from about same area of tree growth.

You don't have that kind of advantage in larger scale tree ring dates, like those used in dating what one is purporting against Biblical chronology.

I suspect that "Inner Date" as being older AD date and "Outer Date" as being younger AD date refer to inwards and outwards between core and bark. But I am not sure.

What I am sure of is, you don't have a Flagstaff case for the wider tree ring chronology, the one which once upon a time made me ask "how can I square the Genesis with a 20,000 year old earth, shall I include some kind of Silmarillion scenario between verses 1 and 2, or sth?"

That chronology is way outside the secure validity of Flagstaff chronology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sabbas, Abbot

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire