24 May 09
Originally posted by DdV"I'm still curious about that. So you agree that the fact that different dating methods agree with each other is a good indication of their validity, yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?"
Both the growing of tree trings and the vibrating of a crystal have a (more or less) certain pace, which makes it possible to use them to measure time. Both are inaccurate to a certain extent, but as long as they're not used to make statements that require a higher degree of accuracy, there's no problem. Hairs don't appear on a bear at a certain pace, so it can' ...[text shortened]... d dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?
David
Each method must stand alone, if it isn't a valid means of measurement what does
it matter that it agrees with any other or all others? As I have been saying we can
get agreement counting the fur on some animals that doesn't mean the counting of
fur is a valid indicator of time. Since tree rings are produced by a variety of factors,
temp, soil, wind, and so on why should they used to as a means to measure
something consistent as time when the rate of production isn't consistent with
respect to any consistent factor? You seem to want to say that counting tree rings
must be valid because it agrees with other factors which is a$$ backwards, that
means of validation would also include animal fur, or some other off the wall means
that happens to give us the numbers we like. With other testing means such as
using a clock there will also be inconsistencies with them we can say this is true
to the 0.025% of telling time accurately, because they are known and predictable
so they can be taken into account; however, you cannot do that with tree rings due
to unpredictable variety of possible factors that can account for inconsistent tree
rings arising or not rising when we thought it should.
Kelly
24 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTo measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
[b]…I wouldn't say tree rings "appear for time reasons" because I have no idea what you mean by that, and I haven't seen you explain it properly in this thread either.
..…
I have been wondering about that. He also uses the vague phrases “related to time” and “time related“.
I can only assume (like I have done so far) that he means “literall ...[text shortened]... ime itself” by all these phrases as I so far assumed?
-if not, exactly what do you mean?[/b]
means of measurement isn’t both of those it losses its predictability so that we cannot
build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for our -/+.
If you have a method that is not either constant or consistent you really have nothing
to build our errors with due to the method cannot be predictable. If you don’t know
how often you lose your constancy you have nothing to suggest your measurements
are accurate.
Kelly
24 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it losses its predictability so that we cannot
build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for our -/+.
If you have a method that is not either constant or consistent you really have nothing
to build our ...[text shortened]... ften you lose your constancy you have nothing to suggest your measurements
are accurate.
Kelly
means of measurement isn’t both of those it losses its predictability so that we cannot
build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for our -/+.
If you have a method that is not either constant or consistent you really have nothing
to build our errors with due to the method cannot be predictable.
..…
Those two sentence don’t make much syntactical sense to me and I don’t know what you mean by “build our errors with”.
….If you don’t know how often you lose your constancy you have nothing to suggest your measurements are accurate.
...…
Ok; if I correctly decipher correctly what you are saying above then you are talking about giving a good estimate of how much the error in measurement deviates from the actual magnitude of the quantity we are trying to measure?
If so, there are well established ways and mathematical tools of doing this using statistical methods so making such estimates this isn’t an issue here.
Have you heard of standard deviation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
-although this is usually applied to measurements specifically on populations it is also generally applied to any set of measurements of the same quantity.
Or have you heard of prediction interval?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_interval
“…a prediction interval is an estimate of an interval in which future observations will fall, with certain probability, given what has already been observed.
Given these above mathematical tools, can you explain what it stopping us using these mathematical tools above and many others to give a good estimate on how often and how much the error in measurement deviates from the actual magnitude of the quantity we are trying to measure?
Also, if you do claim that we cannot give a good estimate on how often and how much the error in measurement deviates from the actual magnitude of the quantity we are trying to measure when analysing tree ring data then would you say the same must be true (for exactly the same kind of reasons) when analysing measurements of time using my digital watch?
24 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method?
"I'm still curious about that. So you agree that the fact that different dating methods agree with each other is a good indication of their validity, yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?"
Each method must stand alone, if it isn't a valid means of measurement what does
it ount for inconsistent tree
rings arising or not rising when we thought it should.
Kelly
..…
Where did DdV say/imply this?
The rest of your post is flawed because it uses the straw man argument that this is his position.
Pointing out that a measurement, like all measurements, is not infinitely accurate does not say/imply in any way that the measurement is “invalid” -it just means the measurement is an ESTIMATE.
You haven’t answered his question -why?
Explain to us why you rudely refuse to answer the perfectly simple question that a number of us put to you:
“…how do you explain how tree ring data agrees with other dating methods?…”
-And saying “what does it matter that it agrees with any other or all others?” doesn’t answer it: it “matters” if you cannot explain it because this proves the tree ring data to be valid.
24 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]I'm aware of those; however, with tree rings there is nothing standard about the
[b]…To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it losses its predictability so that we cannot
build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for our -/+.
If you have a method that is not either constant or consistent you really have nothing ...[text shortened]... or exactly the same kind of reasons) when analysing measurements of time using my digital watch?
ways they can be affected as the Arizona links pointed out, enviromental changes
either cold spells, hot spells, lenghty cold spells, lengthy hot spells, ice, water, wind,
soil, and so on all of which affect the trees in ways that cannot be predicted nor can
you tell which one did what when, which means you have nothing that is either
constant or consistent.
Kelly
24 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayNone of that means that they are generally untrustworthy as measurers of time (or “invalid&ldquo😉 -it just means that they are estimators of time. We can use standard deviation etc to define a good estimate of how good those estimates are.
I'm aware of those; however, with tree rings there is nothing standard about the
ways they can be affected as the Arizona links pointed out, enviromental changes
either cold spells, hot spells, lenghty cold spells, lengthy hot spells, ice, water, wind,
soil, and so on all of which affect the trees in ways that cannot be predicted nor can
you tell wh ...[text shortened]... one did what when, which means you have nothing that is either
constant or consistent.
Kelly[/b]
So explain to us why do you insist that tree ring data is “invalid” when it clearly isn’t?
And why don’t you use the same kind of erroneous reasoning to insist that my digital watch is also “invalid” as an estimator of time? -explain to us what is the fundamental difference between the two? -answer, you cannot -for there is no fundamental difference.
The temperature fluctuations and the random electric/quantum effects that make my digital watch less than infinitely accurate are neither particularly constant nor consistent.
25 May 09
Well if "nothing" can't sudently become something without external factors then the most logical answer is that the universe skiped the beggining part .
We should consider the posibility that it may not have a beggining.
Existance chould very well be just an error rezulted from perfect nothingness( nothing= no matter ,no laws of any kind ,no dimensions,no time, no property) .
And yes , almoast forgot.
The main diference betwen religion and science is that science eventualy proves its point to be true by phisical evidence or just corects itself by finding the true answer.
Just take in consideration that there are a lot of religions on Earth , that kind of proves something.
Sorry for the bad english . Peace
25 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonRight now we are only looking at tree rings, not sure what your talking about when
None of that means that they are generally untrustworthy as measurers of time (or “invalid&ldquo😉 -it just means that they are estimators of time. We can use standard deviation etc to define a good estimate of how good those estimates are.
So explain to us why do you insist that tree ring data is “invalid” when it clearly isn’t?
And why don’t you use t ...[text shortened]... my digital watch less than infinitely accurate are neither particularly constant nor consistent.
you say "they are" you refering to tree rings or other methods?
It does means you don't know why the rings are there! It doesn't get much clearer
than that, you either get them in some manner that speaks to some form of
predictability or you do not. I've addressed you digital watch already if you had
bothered to read the posts responding to you.
You can use a standard form of deviation if you know the amount of changes your
dating method was exposed to, you do not know, you are making up those
numbers if you apply any! So how do you know when years ago a tree went through
several hot or cold seasons within a single year, how do you know if a tree went
through some flooding years ago, and so on? I'm not at all expressing erroneous
reasoning, I'm holding your tree ring method to the same standard I hold your watch
to, and the tree ring method comes up short in that regard.
Kelly
25 May 09
Originally posted by Lord LetoThe bigBang theory doesn't say that Universe really was created at t=0, it just says that something happened then. What?
The main diference betwen religion and science is that science eventualy proves its point to be true by phisical evidence or just corects itself by finding the true answer.
Just take in consideration that there are a lot of religions on Earth , that kind of proves something.
Sorry for the bad english . Peace
So that something was into being from nothing is just a speculation. That there were something before BigBang is also a speculation.
Fundamentalists often says that "How can anything come from nothing?". They haven't read Genisis. There they can read that their god created everything from nothing. So in their view it really is possible. But of the wrong reason.
Their god, however, has been forever. Why couldn't the whole universe have been there forever? Ah, yes, Genisis.
So who created god? Godfather?
Sometimes they believe in Genisis, sometimes they don't. As they wish. And this is the whole point. Creationism is not science, because science and religion cannot ever mix.
You're right, there are a lot of religions on Earth. And everyone of them thinks that they, and they only, possess the absolute Truth, they and noone else. That counts for something.
(By the way, your English is good enough. I've seen many people that write worse English than you do, and they have English as their mother tounge. Don't excuse yourself, your English is good enough.)
25 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by KellyJay
I noticed the occasionally, that means generally the rate of those rings are being
produced by other factors as I have also pointed out and you left off. As such they
are not a good means to read to see how much time as passed. 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.
Kelly
I noticed the occasionally, that means generally the rate of those rings are being
produced by other factors as I have also pointed out and you left off. As such they
are not a good means to read to see how much time as passed.
Produced by other factors than... what?
But no, it doesn't mean what you say. It means that generally, one tree ring a year is produced and occassionally this isn't the case. Exactly how these rings are produced is irrelevant, only the general rate of ring growth, the magnitude of the inaccuracies and the way they are dealt with are. Also, you keep talking about dendrochronology as 'ring counting', which is, as mentioned in the links you posted and in my previous message, an oversimplification.
By the way, I hope that by saying "and you left off" you are not implying I'm trying to distort the facts. I'm aware of the factors that influence ring growth and I don't dispute them. I haven't seen anyone else dispute them either. What is disputed, is whether or not they are sigificant enough to turn the analysis of tree ring growth patterns into a worthless dating method. So far, you haven't given one reason why these non-controversial inaccuracies make dendrochronology worthless. Simply repeating over and over again that there are inaccuracies is not an argument because it doesn't show dendrochronology is used inappropriatly.
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.
Kelly
Huh? Do you mean that dendrochronology is valid, but that you can't use it as a dating method? That doesn't make sense. If it's valid, you can use it to answer questions about the past. (And no, that doesn't mean you can use it to answer all possible questions about the past).
25 May 09
Originally posted by KellyJayEach method must stand alone, if it isn't a valid means of measurement what does
"I'm still curious about that. So you agree that the fact that different dating methods agree with each other is a good indication of their validity, yet you don't consider tree rings a valid dating method? If so, how do you explain it agrees with other dating methods?"
Each method must stand alone, if it isn't a valid means of measurement what does
it ...[text shortened]... ount for inconsistent tree
rings arising or not rising when we thought it should.
Kelly
it matter that it agrees with any other or all others? As I have been saying we can
get agreement counting the fur on some animals that doesn't mean the counting of
fur is a valid indicator of time.
Nonsense. You would not get agreement counting the fur on animals. Do you think dendrochronology agrees with other dating methods because dendrochronologists just start looking for a piece of wood that gives them the same results as some other dating method they used?
Since tree rings are produced by a variety of factors,
temp, soil, wind, and so on why should they used to as a means to measure
something consistent as time when the rate of production isn't consistent with
respect to any consistent factor? You seem to want to say that counting tree rings
must be valid because it agrees with other factors which is a$$ backwards, that
means of validation would also include animal fur, or some other off the wall means
that happens to give us the numbers we like.
The same nonsense. There's nothing "a$$ backwards" about the argument of agreement. If different, unrelated methods produce similar results, it means chances are high they measure what they claim to be measuring. By the way, it's disappointing when, after repeatedly asking a genuine, relevant question the only answer you get is "It is a$$ backwards".
With other testing means such as
using a clock there will also be inconsistencies with them we can say this is true
to the 0.025% of telling time accurately, because they are known and predictable
so they can be taken into account; however, you cannot do that with tree rings due
to unpredictable variety of possible factors that can account for inconsistent tree
rings arising or not rising when we thought it should.
What is "0.025% of telling time"? 0.025% of what? Decades? Years? Seconds? Milliseconds?
You seem to think there's an absolute boundary of accuracy, and that a method which stays below this boundary is good and one that doesn't reach it is bad. That's not how it works. Accuracy is relative to the hypothesis you are trying to test. If I just want to distinguish morning, noon and evening a sun dial is a precise enough instrument, if I want to know if my train rides on schedule I need a digital watch and if I'm doing physical experiments I need a measuring device that is far more accurate than a digital watch. Unless tree ring growth is completely random, tree ring dating is accurate to a certain extent, and that degree of accuracy might be sufficient for the claims that are made using this method of dating.
Do you mean to say that dendrochronology is used to support claims where a higher level of accuracy is necessary? If yes, could you give some proof or examples to show this?
Or, do you mean that analysis of tree rings is completely and utterly worthless as a dating method? This implies tree ring growth is completely random. Do you think tree ring growth is completely random? (Tomtom asked you a similar question before, I hope it's clear that the links you posted earlier are not an answer to his question, because they don't support the idea that tree ring growth is completely random. )
25 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…not sure what your talking about when
Right now we are only looking at tree rings, not sure what your talking about when
you say "they are" you refering to tree rings or other methods?
It does means you don't know why the rings are there! It doesn't get much clearer
than that, you either get them in some manner that speaks to some form of
predictability or you do not. I've addressed you d ard I hold your watch
to, and the tree ring method comes up short in that regard.
Kelly
you say "they are" you referring to tree rings or other methods?
..…
Tree rings -although what I said also applies to all dating methods.
….It does means you don't know why the rings are there!
...…
What on earth are you talking about now? Where did I say/imply this?
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).
….I've addressed you digital watch already if you had
bothered to read the posts responding to you.
…
You mean on page 43 where you clearly falsely claimed:
“….There are NO random inputs that speed up or slow down the watch it is controlled, quite unlike the tree rings
where random outside forces acting upon the tree…” (my emphasis)
-and I pointed out that this is simply not true because OBVIOUSLY there ARE random inputs which I pointed out on the first post on page 44 by saying:
“…temperature and random electrical/quantum effects are examples of random inputs that speed up or slow down the watch …”
you then hadn’t bothered to address this point that you clearly made a clearly false claim about the digital watch as the ‘premise’ for your ‘argument’ thus you haven’t in any way “addressed” the digital watch.
…. I'm not at all expressing erroneous
reasoning, I'm holding your tree ring method to the same standard I hold your watch
to, and the tree ring method comes up SHORT in that regard.
… (my emphasis)
No they don’t!
Reminder:
“…temperature and random electrical/quantum effects are examples of random inputs that speed up or slow down the watch …”
-so should we regard digital watches as untrustworthy estimators of time?
25 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by DdV…This does not
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I noticed the occasionally, that means generally the rate of those rings are being
produced by other factors as I have also pointed out and you left off. As such they
are not a good means to read to see how much time as passed.
Produced by other factors than... what?
But no, it doesn't mean what you say. It me at doesn't mean you can use it to answer all possible questions about the past).[/b]
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.
Kelly
Huh? Do you mean that dendrochronology is valid, but that you can't use it as a dating method? That doesn't make sense. If it's valid, you can use it to answer questions about the past. (And no, that doesn't mean you can use it to answer all possible questions about the past).
..…
I to was wondering what he meant by that as it appears to be logically self-contradictory but didn’t bother to point that out.
I am not sure if he either simply doesn’t notice when he contradicts himself (which he does very often) or pretends not to notice -if the former then all his ‘logic’ must be totally and severely muddled up without him noticing it himself! -if the latter then he must be just trying to really piss us off by making us go around in circles trying and inevitably failing to very tediously decipher what his position is when he has no position!