We do read it. Then when we come back asking critical questions all you do is make excuses and quote Scripture. So do lecture us on who is willing to discuss and who is dodging all the evidence.
1 Like
There are two things on the side of evolutionary science…always. 1. most people rebel against Scripture, so the majority is already on their side, and 2. $$, they have all the money they need to research and publish and keep the paradigm going
1 Like
I agree with Price. Here is my one response to you in this thread…IGNORE
1 Like
Let me be more clear here. I did click and read them. Many of them. But I discovered a lot of the links you shared weren’t even addressing the topic at hand. So yeah I stopped clicking because I wasn’t going to continue to give your site traffic. So it’s not about being unwilling. It’s about you haven’t given me any reason to continue to be willing.
Sorry, that’s simply not the case. If you don’t want to give the site traffic, then don’t waste your time responding to somebody who writes for the site (i.e. me).
You and PDP are infamous for ignoring all the scientific evidence you can’t explain. Makes you guys look really honest in defending your religious fanaticism. Do keep up the good work!
1 Like
Trees have one ring per year; anyone who works in the forest industry knows that. Further, a great deal of detailed environmental information beyond age can be extracted from tree rings. YEC are always indulging in some fallacy that if they find an instance of some exceptional circumstance which produces an anomaly (ie…not normal) it invalidates everything. That is like saying because somebody found a two headed frog, it is hubris to claim that people have one head.
Produce the research surrounding extra growth rings, with the species and contextual details. Demonstrate how those factors might play a role in the Flood or whatever means you are proposing which invalidates dendrochronology. Until then, YEC is just attempting, as is so often the case, to pin prick the balloon with some misrepresented factoid.
Here is how it works…
These structures include earlywood, latewood and annual ring width, cell size, cell-wall thickness and
density of the wood, all of which can vary markedly from year to year. Variations in all of these structures can be related to variations of physiological processes within the trees that govern division, enlargement and differentiation of growing cells in the xylem
3 Likes
Are you admitting again your only purpose for posting at PS is to pimp your CMI site to drive up traffic? Is that why you constantly avoid all discussion of the scientific evidence we show you?
2 Likes
…except when they don’t. The fact that there are exceptions shows that conditions that vary from what we define as “normal” based on our experiences, can be expected to throw off our assumptions. This is at the heart of all these various disagreements. You assert that uniformitarianism is a valid approach to historical science, as far back as you wish to go. We disagree.
You cherry pick one rare and easily recognized anomaly out of millions of data points and use that to claim all the data is suspect. That’s about as far from intellectually honest as it gets.
2 Likes
I have a basic question regarding this kind of study. Just how many rings are you counting in living trees? Because I think from there you jump to fossilized trees? Correct?
So, again, how many rings are you counting in a tree that is now alive?
Very rare. And in very few species. And I don’t think you’ll find any of those trees being used to determine age. I can think of the Bristlecone Pine. And more importantly, the mechanisms of how are understood.
2 Likes
I’m suggesting that if you think what is true today was not true yesterday, to onus is on you to at least detail a detailed and comprehensive theory as to why not. As in other cases where you cite “uniformitarianism”, in the case of tree rings you have not advanced what conditions, exactly, you believe has promoted the appearance of all these extra rings, and how these conditions are analogous to the research to which you are alluding.
2 Likes
Here’s an example from “Norway Spruce”
So, how many examples will it take to convince you? Same problem as before. The goalposts can be moved indefinitely.
Convince me of what?
Hi PD
I have a hard time seeing the data as concluding the earth is young. I also see that theology can be interpreted differently. For instance.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
Do you think God is really talking to a serpent here? Or is this a Messianic prophecy where the serpent is actually Satan?
I am open to the YEC position at this point but don’t yet see the data and scripture following in that direction. I am very interested in your thoughts. I think Nathaniel Jeanson’s models are very interesting. When I have expressed skepticism about the age of the earth Nathaniel has referred me to others who have more expertise.
I like people like John Woodmorappe who continually study and come up with new ideas to explain things like YEC. John W wrote a painfully honest review of tree rings several years ago and CMI was bold enough to publish it. John W told honestly of how creationists need to deal with this subject on a very honest level. I like that kind of honesty. Anyway, here is John Woodmorappe’s new view, or new theory, regarding tree rings - dendrochronology.
Abstract
The Disturbance-Clustering hypothesis, first introduced here, posits that geographically-demarcated subtly-perturbed tree rings had induced the affected trees to crossmatch not in accordance with climatic signals, as is assumed in conventional dendrochronology. They instead crossmatch only within a geographic cluster of like-perturbed trees, and not with those of other clusters or with any of the remaining unaffected climatically-governed trees. During chronology-building, these clusters became connected with each other, into an artificially-long chronology, by means of rarely-occurring fortuitously-crossmatching “bridge” series. An experiment involving fifteen ostensibly heterochronous ancient trees graphically supports this hypothesis. Merely one-per-decade individual-ring perturbations induce all fifteen series to form a self-clustering, robust false master chronology (common variance), moreover to which each series crossmatches to an almost-entirely-convincing degree (nearly all featuring all the important statistics, and including segment-by-segment correspondence of the curves). Significantly, and as experimentally demonstrated in this paper, at least 3 of every 10 disturbances can be omitted in some series, and a robust master chronology still develops. What’s more, the construction of the master chronology is not dependent upon the presence of any series that has the full complement of disturbances. Clearly, modestly-disturbed series could adequately have served as the “core” of a cluster of disturbed trees, just as required by the Disturbance-Clustering hypothesis.
You can start with explaining how the tree ring data aligns so precisely with all the other independent yearly proxies like lake varves, ice core samples, speleothems, ocean core samples, coral ring growths, etc. But you never will because you have no explanation.
1 Like
Yes, environmental conditions impact tree rings. That is exactly why scientists research tree rings, to uncover the record of the environment. Counting the rings is not done to invalidate YEC, that is just a side effect.
By the way, tree rings of course evenly correlate with C-14 dating. So why were tree rings forming during the flood as fast as radioactive decay was speeding up?
1 Like
It matches my experience.