|
Hello,
Although its not the greatest of articles (ill get to the article in
a second. :) ) I do find it interesting that the ICR (Institute for
Creation Research) accepts Dendrochronology (dating by tree rings) as
a good dating method.
This is important because Dendrochronology has dated a living tree back
4,767 years. This is older than the YEC flood date, of around 4,400
years ago. The same area that has the 4,767 year old tree, also has
old tree rings that have dated back to around 9,000 years ago, predating
the standard YEC date of a 6,000 year old earth.
Now, to get to the article (quotes from the article are in blue).
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
Except for their ending most of my comments are just corrections.
”The remarkable fact about the tree is that
it is noted as the oldest known living thing in the world, far surpassing
the vastly more famous Sequoia.”
Its the oldest living tree in the world, but its not the oldest living
thing. Currently “King Clone,” a creosote bush, in Southern
California (Cali seems to get the old things) is believed to be over
11,000 years old. Last year another creosote bush was found that might
be older than King Clone. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020130-1443
wst-ancientshrub.html)
”Through the study of annual growth rings
of these trees, a fairly precise method of absolute dating has been
obtained.”
Just thought I would point out this line in the article. :)
”the summer of 1957—he discovered "Methuselah,"
a tree dating back 4600 years.”
It has now been dated at 4,767 (well 4,768 counting this year) Years
old.
”did reach a growth-ring series of about
11,300 rings, but has led to much debate over the possibility of multiple
ring growth during many periods of climatic history. [6][7] This would
allow for a more recent dating than the individual growth rings show.
[And]
Experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons.
[6] Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could
have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to
four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing
extra ring growth tied to short drought periods.”
This is why they cross date the tree ring findings. Not every tree creates
a double ring in the same place, so By getting many samples from the
area they can date each sample and discover the false double rings and
eliminate most of them.
Its also been suggested that a tree may skip a ring more than it will
create a double ring. However, again, by comparing multiple trees they
can average it out and get a correct date of the tree.
So, in a well researched area, double rings dont pose a problem to the
correct age of the tree.
”creation had to involve some superficial
appearance of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree-rings
already in place.
[and]
Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the
"Appearance of Age Theory." ”
Unfortunatly there is a problem with this theory. Its impossible to
prove or disprove. So its not too good of a theory. Currently it will
stay an assumption, as it is impossible to show the appearance of age.
So its more of a scape goat than a real theory.
”Rocks would likely have yielded old dates
by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today.”
I hope they arent basing this claim on the same data that AIG has based
their claims on, as it has been shown that they missused the dateing
method to get those “faulty” results. See other pages for
examples.
”Even with only minor adjustments in the
growth-ring to-year correlation, most creation scientists would feel
quite comfortable with a resulting date of creation in the 6000-7000
B.C. range.”
Im not sure why we need to be making adjustments. However I’m not
sure how many 6,000 year YECs would be happy with a creation date 8,000-10,000
years ago. This date also is under the age of the King Clone (and possibly
other) bush.
”We don't know for sure, but dendrochronology
is certainly a science that provides facts which evolutionists do not
care to publicize.”
Yep, and thats why I wrote this, to try and hide the data. :)
Although I didn’t see any facts in this article that are a danger
to evolution. They seem to be more a danger for YEC as it falsifies
the standard YEC belief of a 6,000 year old earth.
For more information about Dendrochronology a good basic site is, http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html
It includes information about the Bristlecone pine and about Dendrochronology.
-Ari
Last Update 8/10/03
©03 Ari
Back to Main Page
|