|
essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (8/21/2008 11:40:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops quote:
Good, here's a method for determining the age of a sample. We all agree that (more or less) we get one ring per year in a tree. No single tree has more than a few thousand years of rings. This is true. However, individual years can be picked out due to greater or lesser rainfall, or fires. So that the same year can be identified in two different trees in the same area. This allows us to build up tree-histories, or dendrochronologies. Dendrochronologies for bristlecone pines go back 8500 years, while others based on different trees have been extended back further than 10,000 years. This falsifies Ussher-oid YEC chronology. Well, I give evidence for a young earth, and you respond with evidence for an old earth. No, I argued that the exact same method you mentioned (dendrochronology) actually provides ages in excess of those allowed in YEC. quote:
I must ask what's the point in giving evidence for a young earth when you will just respond "we know the earth is old because radiometric dating/etc. says so." That's not what I said. I used the same method you suggested. quote:
There have been cases where's there's been more than one good match for a tree ring pattern. In the specific article brought up in the other thread, a better method reduced the ambiguity from 100+ matches to a single one. quote:
As for the carbon dating that's supposed to correlate with the dendrochronology... Although radiocarbon dating bolsters the OE argument, standard dendrochronology alone conflicts with YEC. Indeed, if anything, dendrochronology is regarded as more certain than radiocarbon dating and is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|