3 ms·

I think you are mixing up some things. Tree-ring dating (dendrochronology) is certainly not depending on other methods of dating. It is based on the patterns of

by olavk 9y ago

I think you are mixing up some things. Tree-ring dating (dendrochronology) is certainly not depending on other methods of dating. It is based on the patterns of tree rings which is known for more than 10000 years back. For dating a find more confidently you can combine dendrochronology with other methods, but dendrochronological dating is not itself depending on other methods. The bible is certainly not involved, and I would love to see your source for this idea. Your Wikipedia link does not say anything like what you are stating.

nonbel 9y ago
The way I remember is that 1 year -> 1 tree ring is more like an ideal than reality. You can have a series of cold summers with no growth or warm winters with continuous growth. Either can lead to many years -> 1 ring. Or you can have multiple warm/cold periods in one year in which case you can have 1 year -> many rings. As a result the samples that are used for dating need to be carefully chosen, and this has not been done independently of the other sources of data. I also remember it was difficult to find the raw tree ring data (all the images they tried). What was available was only some final data on ring widths, this made me question their assessment that alignments of the various tree ring datasets could just be due to chance similarities.
- olavk 9y ago
  Who are "they" in this story? You are making some vague references here.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    Sorry, don't remember anyone specific. I do remember there were only actually a few people/labs who seemed to be in control of the raw data though. Perhaps start here: http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/itrdb.htm http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/itrdb.htm
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - olavk 9y ago
      I suspect you have heard some arguments by young-earth creationists who wanted to cast doubt on dating methods in general. The links you provide certainly does not support any of the vague claims you make.

by olavk 9y ago

nonbel 9y ago

The way I remember is that 1 year -> 1 tree ring is more like an ideal than reality. You can have a series of cold summers with no growth or warm winters with continuous growth. Either can lead to many years -> 1 ring. Or you can have multiple warm/cold periods in one year in which case you can have 1 year -> many rings. As a result the samples that are used for dating need to be carefully chosen, and this has not been done independently of the other sources of data. I also remember it was difficult to find the raw tree ring data (all the images they tried). What was available was only some final data on ring widths, this made me question their assessment that alignments of the various tree ring datasets could just be due to chance similarities.

olavk 9y ago
Who are "they" in this story? You are making some vague references here.
- nonbel 9y ago
  Sorry, don't remember anyone specific. I do remember there were only actually a few people/labs who seemed to be in control of the raw data though. Perhaps start here: http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/itrdb.htm http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/itrdb.htm
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - olavk 9y ago
    I suspect you have heard some arguments by young-earth creationists who wanted to cast doubt on dating methods in general. The links you provide certainly does not support any of the vague claims you make.