25 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay….because as a dating method it does not measure time
“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”
I'm saying it doesn't matter, because as a dating method it does not measure time
well! You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make
animal fur a good measure of time.
Kelly
well!...…
Only you claim this, NOT us -and you have yet to explain why it should be regarded as a generally untrustworthy ESTIMATOR of time.
….You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers
…
Err, no. Nobody is claiming that “animal fur” can be used as a trustworthy estimator of time. And, unlike with tree rings, I assume nobody has demonstrated that it is a trustworthy estimator of time by showing it to be in good agreement with other dating methods (assuming “animal fur” is used as a dating method!)
26 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI didn't get any relpy the last time, so I answer the same question again:
Dear KellyJay,
I've noticed that you don't believe in any scientific method of measuring time.
I ask you: How would you like to measure time reliably?
You must have better way of measure time becuase you ciriticize every scientific method.
I've noticed that you don't believe in any scientific method of measuring time.
I ask you: How would you like to measure time reliably?
You must have better way of measure time becuase you ciriticize every scientific method.
I think your proposal to use animal fur to tell time is the best suggestion you've made so far. You have a chance here to correct this.
26 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…Nobody is denying that “they respond to several different things” but how does it logically follow from that that usually the main thing that wood growth respond to IS the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another?
[b]…"I already said why the tree rings are there in another post:
they are caused by how the growth of new wood responds to the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another (the seasons). "
Not true, they respond to several different things,
..… (spelling corrected)
How does it logically follow from “they respond to s ...[text shortened]... main cause causing tree rings if not changes in weather from one part of the year to another?[/b]
..…(my emphasis)
Sorry -misprint; the “IS” above should be “is NOT”.
26 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo how does the measuring the growth of fur on animals compare to counting tree rings as a vaild dating method?? This i've got to read.
Typical of you, you leave the discussion on the table and attack someone in a
discussion.
Kelly
I find it laughable that you can just dismiss an effective branch of science (pardon the pun) that has been developed over the last 80yrs, just because you don't understand it, or don't want to understand it.
I'll explain it to you one more time. A tree is cut down and within it are 400 rings, but as we know OCASSIONALLY an extra ring is produced and OCASSIONALLY a ring isn't produced. So 400 rings is an aproximate age of the tree. If a piece of the trees wood is then sent off for radio carbon dating and the results confrim that the tree is around 400yrs old, we can assume the tree is around 400yrs old. It may actually be 397 or 404 yrs old, but 400yrs is good enough.
Does that make sense to you?
26 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf a tree was there when you were a kid. Was there, just a little bigger as you grew up, and then you cut it down and found no rings .... would you conclude that it was not as old as you?
So how does the measuring the growth of fur on animals compare to counting tree rings as a vaild dating method?? This i've got to read.
I find it laughable that you can just dismiss an effective branch of science (pardon the pun) that has been developed over the last 80yrs, just because you don't understand it, or don't want to understand it.
I'll ...[text shortened]... actually be 397 or 404 yrs old, but 400yrs is good enough.
Does that make sense to you?
Of course not ... you know what to believe about its age.
You will never believe that is so young.
26 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou said: This does not invalidate dendrochronology in my opinion it validates it but now you say The study of tree rings or a dating method, if you want to use tree rings as a dating method no, but tree rings in general they are looking at it carefully.
The study of tree rings or a dating method, if you want to use tree rings as a dating
method no, but tree rings in general they are looking at it carefully.
Kelly
Dendrochronology IS a dating method. Maybe you should look into what a word means before you use it, that would limit the amount of guesswork I have to do when reading your messages.
26 May 09
Originally posted by flexmoreWhat are you talking about?
If a tree was there when you were a kid. Was there, just a little bigger as you grew up, and then you cut it down and found no rings .... would you conclude that it was not as old as you?
Of course not ... you know what to believe about its age.
You will never believe that is so young.
26 May 09
Originally posted by flexmoreYou would study it and try to come up with a theory to explain how a tree could grow in such a way, which would then need to be considered whenever dendrochronology was used.
If a tree was there when you were a kid. Was there, just a little bigger as you grew up, and then you cut it down and found no rings .... would you conclude that it was not as old as you?
Of course not ... you know what to believe about its age.
You will never believe that is so young.
Until such a tree is found however, I don't think you really have a point.
On a related note, I gather you have to be careful to ensure you take ice cores from regions where they are laid down in roughly annual layers, rather than places like the one where the world war 2 bombers were buried.
--- Penguin.
26 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI see that rather then replying to my posts, where I question you about the ridiculous claim that counting animal fur is in agreement with tree ring dating , you just keep repeating your unfounded claims. Are you hoping they become true if you just repeat them enough? And this isn't only the case for this example, you haven't answered any questions about the fact that you misrepresent dendrochronology when you call it 'ring counting', about the importance of the nature of the question your trying to answer to determine the necessary level of accuracy for a measuring method, about what you mean by using phrases as "appear for time reasons", etc.
“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”
I'm saying it doesn't matter, because as a dating method it does not measure time
well! You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers, that does not make
animal fur a good measure of time.
Kelly
So far, I have just seen you repeat your position over and over, without providing any real evidence to support your claims. The only more or less concrete attempt you did to provide any evidence for your position was when you posted those links, but it has been pointed out to you multiple times that those do not necessarily have the implications you think they have. You refuse to answer questions, even when asked multiple times. You hardly ever respond to any of the arguments presented to you. More often than not, your answers sound like you haven't even read the posts you are responding too. Frankly, I think that the way you treat the replies you get in this thread is rude and disrespectful and your idignation about the somewhat hostile reactions you sometimes get is unjustified.
Despite what you might conclude from my involvement in this thread, I don't particularly enjoy running into a brick wall. I'd be happy to continue discussing this, but I'm not going to bother if the only replies I get from you sound like they come from a broken record.
26 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by flexmoredon’t know your point here:
If a tree was there when you were a kid. Was there, just a little bigger as you grew up, and then you cut it down and found no rings .... would you conclude that it was not as old as you?
Of course not ... you know what to believe about its age.
You will never believe that is so young.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, you found such a tree. But the fact would remain that MOST observed trees DO have rings and the fact would also remain that tree ring dating is vindicated because not only is it consistent MOST of the time ( i.e. with tree rings generally agreeing with tree rings MOST of the time BUT, in case you are about to do a helly-Kelly on us, NOT all the time; nobody is claiming they are infinitely accurate but rather they are generally good ESTIMATORS ) BUT they are also in generally good agreement with other dating methods thus it must be a generally trustworthy ESTIMATOR of dates -so your point would be….?
26 May 09
Originally posted by PBE6None, I guess, he doesn't know what time it is now.
DdV has far more patience than most, KellyJay. He would be a great resource (as would many of us) if only you'd listen.
KellyJay, which dating methods do you consider reliable?
KJ has this view: If science cannot produce 100.0 % reliability, or he don't understand it up to 100.0 %, then it is completely false. And if it's completely false, then any opinion is the correct one, and the absolute Truth is established. Amen.
27 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is untrustworthy as I have pointed out because it isn't just time related event it is
[b]….because as a dating method it does not measure time
well!...…
Only you claim this, NOT us -and you have yet to explain why it should be regarded as a generally untrustworthy ESTIMATOR of time.
….You again can get animal fur to give you the same answers
…
Err, no. Nobody is claiming that “animal fur” can be used as a t ...[text shortened]... in good agreement with other dating methods (assuming “animal fur” is used as a dating method!)[/b]
related to those things that occur to the tree, you can have several rings appear in
a year or none, so that alone disqualifies it as a measuring tool for time.
Kelly
27 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonValid in that they actually look to see why the rings occur, invalid in that is supposed
That doesn’t explain it because you previously said:
[b]…This does NOT invalidate DENDROCHRONOLOGY in my opinion it validates it, but NOT the way you would prefer to SEE it answer questions you have about the PAST
..… (my emphasis)
But this is a logical contradiction because you imply here that dendrochronology IS “valid” by saying abo ...[text shortened]... her pointing it out.
Can you explain how dendrochronology can be BOTH be “valid” AND “invalid”?[/b]
to be a good measure of time.
Kelly
27 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou read the links provided to back up that didn't you?
[b]…Nobody is denying that “they respond to several different things” but how does it logically follow from that that usually the main thing that wood growth respond to IS the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another?
..…(my emphasis)
Sorry -misprint; the “IS” above should be “is NOT”.[/b]
Kelly