Evolution Debunked Pt3: Tree Ring Dating not Logical Beyond 3500 years

Tree Ring dating was a major breakthrough in dating in dating the earth and human artifacts. This has been scientifically dated to about 3500 years. After this, the "science" is a good effort, but fails. It fails based upon a simple principle: trees grow more densely when crowded out by more mature trees. Stated another way, when the canopies of mature trees overshadow saplings, those saplings grow to be more dense.




Charles Lyell (a liar) invented a theory called Stratigraphy. This was the mother of "millions and billions of years". Geology has based their assignment of dates to layers of earth based on Stratigraphy. Archeology also based their system on Stratigraphy. Today, If you ask a Geologist how a layer of earth is dated, they will tell you it is based upon the dating of artifacts found therein.

If you ask an Archeologist how the artifacts are dated, he will tell you it is dated according to the layer of earth in which it was discovered.

???????????????????????????????????????? ??????

That is a circular argument. They both date based on each other. The real origin of dating goes back to Stratigraphy and Charles Lyell.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolutin
• scientific
• method
• tree ring
• dating
• young
• earth
• intelligent
• design
• reason
• logic
• age
• of
• the
• Kent
• Hovind

[SqueakerAlpha]

Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) uses the FACT that a tree will form 2 rings per year on average. One ring indicates rapid growth, the other slow growth during winter. The sequence of rings and their thicknesses can be used to match growth patterns over a period of years and allows a matching between trees with overlapping ages, thus extending the number of years which can be counted directly.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@SqueakerAlpha 2 rings per year "on average"?

Thanks for the textbook definition of dendrochronology. It fails to add to the conversation, however. Two trees, in the same field, can have different growth in the same season based on: overall health of the tree, difference in soil below, taller trees near to it (that is a big one!), having a root cut (burrowing animals like to eat bark), or some other reason. D-ology only laps THREE ring-sets from two trees. Adjacent rings need not match.

[jdigitalseven]

@MyGodMoreGooder

You are confusing macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the ONLY form that can be observed, the other 5 in no way shape or form are observable. Most use the evidence for Micro evolution to "prove" the rest.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@jdigitalseven Good comment, thanks.

[websnarf]

Trees that get no sun, die young. Furthermore, dendrochronology is a highly *statistical* science. They don't just line up a couple trees. They try to find as much overlapping as possible. Finally, the signature they are looking for is *WEATHER PATTERNS*, so even if a tree were occluded, the relative ring size would still correspond to seasonal variations uniformly from trees of the same area.

If you want to see data, why don't you just *LOOK UP* the data?

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@websnarf I have looked at the data. The Pine tree studies done here in California hinge entirely on a link using the bristlecone pine. Unfortunately, the one group which links the recent lines (legitimate) to another line (also legit) is modified using three different processes- which were not applied to the other data.

In short, they tweeked, squeezed and factored the data until it fit. This is 100% illegitimate and is very, very faulty science.

[joshuatmathews]

You fundamentally misunderstand how this process works. And, it CANNOT be learned in a few days. If you are actually an engineer, you should know that.

How could you possibly believe that you picked up on this huge, obvious defect in reasoning that thousands of scientists around the world didn't.

Your arguments are akin to Kirk Cameron's video "proving" intelligent design because bananas have grooves that fit well into the human hand. (Search it). I guess God just screwed up on apples.

[OscerMeyerWiener]

I think people on this channel have posted a legitimate challenge. You have a problem with evolution; but what about Geology? What about Botany? What about Astronomy? Do you believe Geologists are practicing a false science? A Geologist will tell you the world is much older than the bible says. An astronomer can tell you the earth is 4 billion years old. How about Hinduism? Or Buddhism? Or Zoroastrianism? Or Judaism? You obviously believe what you want, and not what is correct. WAKE UP!

[fresniak]

You forgot to mention another problem with tree rings dating. Trees can produce quite sometimes 4-5 rings per year, if the all measurement is based on the assumption of just 1 ring per year trees which look very old may as well be not that old.

[gregrutz]

@MelindaGood Fossils prove something lived in the past. Most of the things that lived in the past are extinct, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers, no Neaderthals.

Dinosaur nests prove that the eggs were cared for and Dinosaurs had nesting areas.

You might be surprised what they know from fossils, incl. spores and seeds [when they finally evolved].

[MrChristainchris]

has what you say been peer reviewed and by who if it was.

[TheGamanic]

@joshuatmathews Or coconuts...

[angellicvoices]

I dont understand this video. Why on earth would you want to match up two inconsistent trees? Wouldnt you want to try and find two with the same area position, same soil etc? Afterall thats the only way you can find signature growth patterns that match up. Inconsistent trees will obviously not match probably any of thier ring patterns and is a waste of scientists time and will not produce an age. Only ones that match up will have distinct signatures.

[ndrthrdr1]

It's encouraging to me to see that the Likes/Dislikes ratio on this video (so far) shows that about 2/3 of viewers don't fall for the faulty arguments on which this video is based.

[websnarf]

@MelindaGood : Examination of fossils *IS* a kind of autopsy. Junk yards don't have the remnants of living things in them, and in any event no you *CAN'T* show a line from a spoon to a piano, because nothing connects them. There's no prize for that. Living structures come only from living structures -- so if you see partial similarity and evidence for animals that don't exist today, then you need an explanation for it. And evolution is the only game in town.

[MelindaGood]

@websnarf you still do not understand that you cannot prove what happens in life from a dead thing. maybe in autopsy, but fossils do not prove anything. If I were to go to a junk yard I could probably come up with a reasonable line of objects that would prove that a spoon evolved into a piano. You know, because it became a bowl, and then a bath tub, and then a chest of drawers with fancy knobs, but then you can see that in one case the knobs aligned more and then a piano! wow! nobel prize!