Page 2 of 12
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:09 pm
by ed
Frank Harrist wrote:ed wrote:
Incidentially, you would all be as attractively knowledgeable as moi had you read the greatest book, which I thoughtfully (yet pointlessly) pointed you toward.
Sorry I missed it, Ed. What book was that?
Just the best damn little book in the whole world....
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?t=832
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:15 pm
by ed
Genesis Veracity wrote:Ed, if you can prove that all tree rings reflect one year of growth, then you get the big prize.
I am makeing an affermative statement based on examples and data that demonstrate the triangulation of dendrochronology with other dating tools. If you are going to play the game of finding inconsistancies here or there forget it. If you are going to attempt to displace a reasonably well established tool then go at it, the onus is on you.
What an odd god you believe in that not only murders his creations but fools them too.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:27 pm
by stan
Mr. Veracity,
How inaccurate are annual tree rings as to determining
the age of trees?
stan
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:04 pm
by Guest
Stan, it's hard to tell, now isn't it? Where were the weather reporters at 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 B.C. with whose records we could compare notes? Know what I mean? And during the Ice Age, the odds are good that weather patterns were, shall we say, significantly different.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:08 pm
by Frank Harrist
Different weather conditions cause different growth patterns. It is readable.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:36 pm
by stan
Mr Veracitywrote:
Stan, it's hard to tell, now isn't it? Where were the weather reporters at 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 B.C. with whose records we could compare notes? Know what I mean? And during the Ice Age, the odds are good that weather patterns were, shall we say, significantly different.
Sorry, Mr. Veracity....
I don't buy it....A year was still a year, n'est-ce pas?
The ice did not cover the entire earth, and the earth revolved around the sun..
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:42 pm
by Guest
Stan, you seem ignorant of the concepts involved.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:59 pm
by ed
Genesis Veracity wrote:Stan, it's hard to tell, now isn't it? Where were the weather reporters at 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 B.C. with whose records we could compare notes? Know what I mean? And during the Ice Age, the odds are good that weather patterns were, shall we say, significantly different.
No. Wrong.
You do not really know much about dating, do you?
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:02 pm
by Guest
Why do you ask?
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:04 pm
by stan
Stan, you seem ignorant of the concepts involved.
Same to you.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:04 pm
by ed
Genesis Veracity wrote:Why do you ask?
It is palpible. No need to really go into it. You are just clueless in this particular area.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:11 pm
by Guest
No, you apparently are clueless in this area, but that's ok, as surely, it's not the only one.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:13 pm
by stan
GV, as an author, you have to learn to respond more effectively to questions about those things on which
you purport to be an authority.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm
by Guest
It's common sense, if there was a period of time with 10 or 12 very wet spells per year in ancient times, rather than, say, 5 or 6 today, then the dendochronological dating results will be exaggerated, and the climate was different during the Ice Age, don't you think so?
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:27 pm
by stan
No. Tree rings don't go nuts because of variable weather.