Archaeologica.org

That's fantastic.

Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present

i was well aware of the calibration of c-14 with dendrochronology but had only come across a figure of 5-6,000 years not 11,000 since it would be rare, (extremely rare) to find a tree that old. the general sherman is the oldest living sequoia and that one reaches only about 3-4,000.

but that places an extreme limit on c-14 as anything older would be hard to corroborrate.

The entire argument hinges on 2 being an unreasonable assumption.

and your point is? it seems you have jumped from your disagreeance to his classification of an unreasonable assumption to talking about tree rings. you made no further comment upon point #2, so i am wondering what you are leaving out.

i think it would be hard to gauge the constant rate of c-14/12 plus it would be hard to say with any degree of certainty that the rate of decline is adjustable.

Clearly, we can't determine an accurate C14/C12 ratio if we don't know how much C14 there is over the course of time

one question remains---how do researchers know how much c-14 had at the time of death? at best it is just a guesstimation based upon assumption which leads us to a conclusion that is clearly not written in stone. but which are used just for that purpose.

i have heard the term straw man several times but not sure how it aplies in this instance. i just thought the writer made some good points especially when he takes into consideration the effects the flood would have on all remaining fossils and carbon related materials.

whether you believe in the flood or not, the possibility needs to be factored in, if just for comparison readings to mark accuracy. i think the straw man argument is going a little too far here as i felt he presented the opposition's position fairly accurately (according to the research i have done outside the religious network)

going back to the calibration argument for a minute, how do we know that the figures used for the benchmark are correct--at this point in time tree rings would be excluded from that remark--? obviously because of the time frame involved, we can only rely on equations and theory to say with any degree of certainty that the dates are correct yet what i fail to see is a good argument supporting the change in speed in the rate of decline.

That's fantastic.

minimalist is only kept around to provide comic relief, nothing else

Someone has to point out what a horse's ass you are.

It isn't a hard job but it is steady work.

archaeologist wrote:

Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present

i was well aware of the calibration of c-14 with dendrochronology but had only come across a figure of 5-6,000 years not 11,000 since it would be rare, (extremely rare) to find a tree that old. the general sherman is the oldest living sequoia and that one reaches only about 3-4,000.

but that places an extreme limit on c-14 as anything older would be hard to corroborrate.

You are mistaken in assuming that trees must be living in order to assemble cohesive and accurate chronologies. Any introductory textbook on Archaeology will straighten that out for you. You'll also note that dendrochronology isn't the only method used for calibration. You still have coral, sediment, and core calibration to refute.

archaeologist wrote:

The entire argument hinges on 2 being an unreasonable assumption.

and your point is? it seems you have jumped from your disagreeance to his classification of an unreasonable assumption to talking about tree rings. you made no further comment upon point #2, so i am wondering what you are leaving out.

No, you have jumped from the logical fallacy inherent in point #2 to tree rings. My point is that I've identified the very heart of the argument presented on that site and I have offered evidence in rebuttal to it. There is no further comment for me to make. The ball is still in your court. I'll withhold further comment until you address the remaining calibration techniques.

You are mistaken in assuming that trees must be living in order to assemble cohesive and accurate chronologies.

i wasn't assuming anything, i was trying to get a bead on the date you quoted.

I'll withhold further comment until you address the remaining calibration techniques.

i thought i did with the following:

going back to the calibration argument for a minute, how do we know that the figures used for the benchmark are correct--at this point in time tree rings would be excluded from that remark--? obviously because of the time frame involved, we can only rely on equations and theory to say with any degree of certainty that the dates are correct yet what i fail to see is a good argument supporting the change in speed in the rate of decline.

there are some things i mentioned you failed to address.

About dendrochronoly :you realy do not need a tenthousand year old tree to calibrate events dating back so far ago.Take ten trees from the same area ,you will notice growth rings for perhapsa few thousandsof years (if you are lucky and find some really old ones )You will not help but notice that the growth rings of the different trees show evidence of growing patterns as climatological circumstances vary during their growth .You can make up a growth pattern for a period ranging back between 3000 and 3100 years ago if you take into consideration 100 growth rings .They must be similar on all trees involved ,correct ?Now take a tree or a piece of timber showing the same growing pattern on the outside of the tree .You can then count back again a few hunderds or thousands of years into an even further past ,agreed ?
Using enough samples would allow one to finetune this method to go back tenthousands of years using dendrochronology as one way of dating wooden artefacts or timber .If these results proove amazingly similar to those obtained by radiocarbon dating and other means that is certainly more proof than pointing to the bible and stating :the bible says you are wrong because it is written so .To any reasonable person this is unacceptable .But to creationists using the bible faith only points to itself

archaeologist wrote:i thought i did with the following:

going back to the calibration argument for a minute, how do we know that the figures used for the benchmark are correct--at this point in time tree rings would be excluded from that remark--? obviously because of the time frame involved, we can only rely on equations and theory to say with any degree of certainty that the dates are correct yet what i fail to see is a good argument supporting the change in speed in the rate of decline.

there are some things i mentioned you failed to address.

Yes, there are points that you have raised that I haven't addressed. I will.

First, let's see if we are on the same page regarding calibration.

talkorigins.org wrote:The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

Are we in agreement that the data needed for calibration is known back to around 50,000 years and that that data is provided by hard physical evidence? If you don't agree, let's have your refutation. If you do agree, let me know and we'll proceed with the points you have already raised.

Are we in agreement that the data needed for calibration is known back to around 50,000 years and that that data is provided by hard physical evidence?

i can only agree in part as i have my own theory on this and it differs from the copmmonly accepted religious thinking that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. right now i am only willing to go back about 12,000 years but i will listen to your perspective of 50,000---okay?

my reluctance is based upon many factors which i want to wait before posting here as i may include it in my paper and i want to get that written first.

When you finish your paper and are ready, I will gladly listen to your refutation (or acceptance) of the coral, sediment, and core data and its application in C14 dating.

I'm not in a hurry. Take your time.

I'm not in a hurry. Take your time

that is okay, i am still waiting for an answer on the question i posed on those suplementery dating processes.

as i said, i am willing to listen to your 50,000 year limit so there really is no need to wait for my refutation.

i go on vacation this saturday and the next couple of weeks i will be here a lot less than usual. i know that is good news for minimalist, though i am sure he will get lonely with no one to bad mouth everyday.

i know that is good news for minimalist, though i am sure he will get lonely with no one to bad mouth everyday.

What makes you think I can't make fun of you in your absense?

archaeologist wrote:as i said, i am willing to listen to your 50,000 year limit so there really is no need to wait for my refutation.

If we were here to exchange tales of Grandmother Spacewarp around the campfire while we fellowship, that would be great. Instead, let's have the honest scientific discussion that you have said you desire. At your leisure ...

Instead, let's have the honest scientific discussion that you have said you desire.

Don't hold your breath, tj.

Minimalist wrote:

Instead, let's have the honest scientific discussion that you have said you desire.

Don't hold your breath, tj.

The only thing I'm holding my breath for is Arch's claim of victory and dishonest discussion on my part.

In fact, I proclaim that the Lord has commanded me to state that Arch's false claim of victory and dishonest discussion on my part shall come to pass! The Lord has put those very words in my mouth! I invite all to judge the accuracy of this divine prophecy by the criteria set out by the Lord in Deuteronomy 18:17-22.

Considering the lessons of Jeremiah 28, it may take many years, possibly billions of years, to determine whether or not I am indeed a true prophet.

Convenient, ain't it?