All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
don’t know your point here:

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 ...[text shortened]... ng methods thus it must be a generally trustworthy ESTIMATOR of dates -so your point would be….?

You even admit here that tree rings can be way out of line and still want to use the
tree rings that agree with your views on age to be the correct amount of rings to
use as a measure of time. You don't see how flawed that is!?
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
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?

All measuring be it dates or any other that can be verified in the here and now I'd say
are reliable, the father away from verification the methods go the father away from
being reliable they are.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
All measuring be it dates or any other that can be verified in the here and now I'd say
are reliable, the father away from verification the methods go the father away from
being reliable they are.
Kelly

So which ones do you consider reliable?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is untrustworthy as I have pointed out because it isn't just time related event it is
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

…it isn't just time related event
..…

I ask you again; what do you mean by “time related”?
Do you literally mean “caused by time itself”? -if so, then nothing is “time related”.
And how would my digital watch be “time related” (whatever you mean by that) and NOT tree rings etc?

…it isn't just time related event
..…

I ask you again; what do you mean by “time related”?
Do you literally mean “caused by time itself”? -if so, then nothing is “time related”.
And how would my digital watch be “time related” (whatever you mean by that) and NOT tree rings etc?

….you can have several rings appear in
a year or none, so that alone disqualifies it as a measuring tool for time
...…

So this means you would think I SHOULD throw away my digital watch because it’s displayed time is effected by temperature thus “that alone disqualifies it as a measuring tool for time”?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Valid in that they actually look to see why the rings occur, invalid in that is supposed
to be a good measure of time.
Kelly

…Valid in that they
..…

What do you mean? Exactly what are you referring to by the word “they” above? Do you mean “wood growth”? or “dendrochronology”? or “the scientists” or what?

….invalid in that is supposed
to be a good measure of time.
...…

Is what you mean by “good” above is “infinitely accurate”?
Is my digital watch not a “good” measure of time for the same reason?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You read the links provided to back up that didn't you?
Kelly

Which part of:

“…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 NOT the general changes in weather from one part of the year to another? …” (misprint corrected)

does the link refute? -answer; no part. The above assertion still stands.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You even admit here that tree rings can be way out of line and still want to use the
tree rings that agree with your views on age to be the correct amount of rings to
use as a measure of time. You don't see how flawed that is!?
Kelly

…You even admit here that tree rings can be way out of line
..…

Nope; read the “Suppose, just for the sake of argument” part.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All measuring be it dates or any other that can be verified in the here and now I'd say
are reliable, the father away from verification the methods go the father away from
being reliable they are.
Kelly

…All measuring be it dates or any other that can be verified in the here and now I'd say are reliable
..…

And if it was verified but not in the “the here and now” then should we just pretend it wasn’t verified? 😛

Also; today and yesterday I checked my digital watch and it showed the correct time. But neither I nor anybody else checked my watch the day before yesterday. Should I therefore assume that my watch credibly may gave the wrong time the day before yesterday and therefore is untrustworthy as a measurer or of time and should be thrown away?
Point: if the answer is “no” then why should tree rings be treated any differently?

….the further away from verification the methods go …
...… (spelling corrected)

In what way is the total vindication of tree ring dating by its good general agreement with other completely DIFFERENT dating methods “further away from verification“?

Originally posted by PBE6
So which ones do you consider reliable?

I just told you, you want examples?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You even admit here that tree rings can be way out of line
..…

Nope; read the “Suppose, just for the sake of argument” part.[/b]

I read it, and your answer was telling.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…it isn't just time related event
..…

I ask you again; what do you mean by “time related”?
Do you literally mean “caused by time itself”? -if so, then nothing is “time related”.
And how would my digital watch be “time related” (whatever you mean by that) and NOT tree rings etc?

…it isn't just time related event
..…

I ask y ...[text shortened]... ime is effected by temperature thus “that alone disqualifies it as a measuring tool for time”?[/b]

Here was my answer the first time you asked, maybe you'll read it this time.


To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it loses 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.

Tree rings do not fit because they are neither constant nor consistent since the tree
reacts to the conditions around it which are random and unknownable just by looking
at the rings themselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here was my answer the first time you asked, maybe you'll read it this time.


To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it loses its predictability so that we
cannot build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for
our -/+. If you have a metho ...[text shortened]... ons around it which are random and unknownable just by looking
at the rings themselves.
Kelly

Still don't understand dendrochronometrics?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here was my answer the first time you asked, maybe you'll read it this time.


To measure time a couple of things are required a constant and consistency if your
means of measurement isn’t both of those it loses its predictability so that we
cannot build a means to give our errors some means of predictable percentages for
our -/+. If you have a metho ...[text shortened]... ons around it which are random and unknownable just by looking
at the rings themselves.
Kelly

So the seasons are random and unknowable?! That's news to me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So the seasons are random and unknowable?! That's news to me.

is this real, or is this just a ride?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this real, or is this just a ride?

WATCH OUT!!!!! Another Christian Fundametalist in the science forum, this could be good for a laugh.

Come on then Robster, let's have you're 10pence worth on this.

Dendrochronology, what do you think?

KellyJay is providing lots of humour at the moment, and if one Christian fundamentalist isn't making me laugh enough, you surely will.