20 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…It is a good indication of their validity;
It is a good indication of their validity; however, again they all must
be viewed with skepticism to see if they are worth bringing to the table
to use as evidence for the notion of agreement, don’t you think? The
point is that you very well may have solid information to prove your
point using other dating methods, but tree rings should not be used as
...[text shortened]... ve nothing
to hang your hat on, if they prove other wise you have a strong point.
Kelly
..… (my emphasis)
At last you answered his question.
….however, again they all must be viewed with scepticism
...…
-AFTER, as you just admitted, they have been vindicated? 😛
20 May 09
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…I'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak
I'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak for the reasons
already posted, again I can count the fur on a bear if it gives me the
same number as how many years I think the universe is old does that
mean bear fur is now a valid dating method simply because I can see
numbers I like, answer no! It has to be valid towards measuring time,
you want to use something that isn't and that is my complaint!
Kelly
..… (my emphasis)
You already said that -but HE didn’t say that!
….for the reasons already posted
...…
-“reasons” which have been shown only to prove that the dating method isn’t infinitely accurate. The problem with that is nobody claimed it was!
Tree ring data has been proven to generally give a good ESTIMATE ( i.e. NOT an infinitely accurate date but an ESTIMATE) of the dates by being in generally good agreement with other dating methods -none of the “reasons” you gave contradict that it is a generally good ESTIMATE of the dates -only contradicts the notion that it is infinitely accurate which nobody had nor claimed.
My digital watch doesn’t give an infinitely accurate measure of time because it just gives a good estimate. You can show very good evidence (PROOF in fact!) of its inaccuracies by pointing to the fact that it runs at slightly different speeds at different temperatures because time itself doesn’t cause the vibrating crystal inside to vibrate at a constant rate. Even at the SAME temperature, you can prove its inaccuracies by pointing to the fact that if you put two digital watches side by side and run them for long enough then you will observe their displayed times being out of sync just as you can prove the inaccuracies of tree rings (which nobody has disputed) by finding two sets of tree rings dated to the same dates that don’t agree and pointing out the fact that if you put them side by side you will observe they do not exactly correspond (this doesn’t show that they are not a good estimate).
Does that mean I should throw away my digital watch because I should conclude that if it isn’t infinitely accurate and thus it isn’t time related then it cannot give a good estimate of time?
I can prove that it is a good estimator of time by showing that it is in general good agreement with mechanical clocks and also in general good agreement with the current position of the sun/stars etc.
Point: Why should we use a DIFFERENT ‘logic’ when accessing the validity of tree rings?
20 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst you say :"It is a good indication of their validity but a bit later you claim: "tree rings according to that what I have posted is not
It is a good indication of their validity; however, again they all must
be viewed with skepticism to see if they are worth bringing to the table
to use as evidence for the notion of agreement, don’t you think? The
point is that you very well may have solid information to prove your
point using other dating methods, but tree rings should not be used as
...[text shortened]... ve nothing
to hang your hat on, if they prove other wise you have a strong point.
Kelly
justified as a valid dating method. Either it's a valid dating method, or it's not.
I don't mind at all that you attempt to look critically at scientific knowledge. On the contrary, that's what scientists do, too. But the conclusions you draw from your critical investigation are unwarranted. Your doubts about dendrochronology could be used to point out that this dating method is not 100% accurate. But that doesn't mean it's not a valid dating method for other claims.
It all depends on what kind of claims are made based on this method. To borrow an example from earlier in this thread, the flaws you mentioned could be used to debunk a claim such as "with dendrochronology, we can prove this tree is 276 years old", but that doesn't mean a claim like "with dendrochronology, we estimate the age of this tree to be between 240 and 275 years old" is debunked by the same flaws.
While I appreciate your attempt to keep the discussion narrow, I do think you have to adress the consistency between different dating methods to prove your point that they are too unreliable to be used as evidence for the claims they are used for.
David
20 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI was thinking of a similar analogy to illustrate the importance of validity. A sun dial isn't a very precise method and it's very easy to point out inaccuracies. I couldn't use one to "prove" that it's 10.54 am. But I could use it to "prove" it's morning, noon, or evening.
[b]…I'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak
..… (my emphasis)
You already said that -but HE didn’t say that!
….for the reasons already posted
...…
-“reasons” which have been shown only to prove that the dating method isn’t infinitely accurate. The problem with that is nobody claimed it was!
Tree ring data ha ...[text shortened]... c.
Point: Why should we use a DIFFERENT ‘logic’ when accessing the validity of tree rings?[/b]
David
21 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobI pulled the information from them, they are quite aware of the short
Maybe you would like to write a letter to the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona, which is where the science of dendrochronology was formulated, and let them know that you have debunked their 80yr+ research so they can stop wasting their time.
comings.
Kelly
21 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou and I here have only discussed tree rings if you want to just claim that
[b]…It is a good indication of their validity;
..… (my emphasis)
At last you answered his question.
….however, again they all must be viewed with scepticism
...…
-AFTER, as you just admitted, they have been vindicated? 😛[/b]
other people believe that to be true so it must be, that sort of opens up
a whole new can of worms don't you think?
Kelly
21 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayIf more than one believe the same thing, then it cannot be true, in your opinion?
You and I here have only discussed tree rings if you want to just claim that
other people believe that to be true so it must be, that sort of opens up
a whole new can of worms don't you think?
Kelly
But if only one believe it, then it must be true, because he thinks outside the box?
What about dinos on the ark - true or false?
21 May 09
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…you want to just claim that
You and I here have only discussed tree rings if you want to just claim that
other people believe that to be true so it must be, that sort of opens up
a whole new can of worms don't you think?
Kelly
other people believe that to be true so it must be
..…
Nope; I challenge you to point out where I said this!
The fact that you have resorted to making out my claims to be different from what they are shows you just cannot handle them as they are -you have claerly lost the argument here -I challenge you to prove me wrong by fully addressing what I actually DID say!
22 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour digital watch is designed around time tree rings not so much.
[b]…I'm telling you tree rings as a dating method are weak
..… (my emphasis)
You already said that -but HE didn’t say that!
….for the reasons already posted
...…
-“reasons” which have been shown only to prove that the dating method isn’t infinitely accurate. The problem with that is nobody claimed it was!
Tree ring data ha ...[text shortened]... c.
Point: Why should we use a DIFFERENT ‘logic’ when accessing the validity of tree rings?[/b]
Kelly
22 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNow you must be joking, right?
Your digital watch is designed around time tree rings not so much.
Kelly
Do you really think this is a intelligent response?
You know perfectly well that digital watches is not based on tree rings, don't you? So why bring up this totally idiotic response to Andrew's posting?
So you must be joking, right?
You usually don't respond to my postings, but this you simply must respond to...
22 May 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe've tried, and he will other try as well. With the same result, I'm afraid.
I think we've reached as far as we can go with this one. The bottom line is that he just isn't intelligent enough to grasp what is being discussed and form a coherent point of view. We tried.
They are like that, the christian fundamentalists.