DiscussMormonism.com

Young Earthers, could you please explain to me why you do not believe in Dendrochronology?

Are there any of these methods of dating that you do believe work?

(from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_met ... rchaeology )
Absolute methods

Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:

Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials
Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications
Potassium-argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record
Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates [1]
Magnetic Properties of Lead used to establish dates. Chemistry Professor Shimon Reich, a specialist in superconductivity, has demonstrated a method for dating artifacts based on the magnetic properties of lead, a material widely used in Israel and elsewhere in antiquity. Reich and coworkers found that at cryogenic temperatures, lead becomes a superconductor, but the corrosion products formed from centuries of exposure to air and water (lead oxide and lead carbonate) do not superconduct. On the basis of magnetic measurements and comparison with artifacts that were known (using other techniques) to be up to 2500 years old, the group showed that the mass of lead corrosion products is directly proportional to an object's age (New Journal of Physics, 2003, 5, 99)
Amino acid dating[2][3][4][5]
Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
Rehydroxylation dating- for dating ceramic materials[6]

Relative methods

Relative or indirect methods tend to use associations built from the archaeological body of knowledge. An example is seriation. Ultimately, relative dating relies on tying into absolute dating with reference to the present. One example of this is dendrochronology which uses a process of tying floating chronologies of tree rings together by cross referencing a body of work.

In practice several different dating techniques must be applied in some circumstances, thus dating evidence for much of an archaeological sequence recorded during excavation requires matching information from known absolute or some associated steps, with a careful study of stratigraphic relationships.

Age Equivalent Stratigraphic Markers

Paleomagnetism: the polarity of the Earth changes at a knowable rate. This polarity is stored within rocks; through this the rock can be dated.

Tephrochronology: volcanic ash has its own signature for each eruption. In a sedimentary sequence the associated material within the ash layer can be dated, giving a date for the eruption. If this ash is found anywhere else in the world, a date will already be known (bearing in mind transportation time).

Oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy: this is based on the climatic stages displayed in SPECMAP relating to different cold and warm stages experienced in deep time; for example, point 5.5 in the SPECMAP chronology describes the peak of the last interglacial 125,000 years ago.

Just me, imagine that you absolutely know that the earth was created last Tuesday. Now throw out any evidence to the contrary and convolute your rationale to the point you can dismiss the scads of evidence to the contrary. Now add on a heap of bad psuedo science and presto...... You too can be a last Tuesday creationist.

You're probably looking to interact with a live YEC, but much like Mormon apologetics, there's an answer for everything in young earth creationism. In this case:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... econe-pine

EAllusion wrote:You're probably looking to interact with a live YEC, but much like Mormon apologetics, there's an answer for everything in young earth creationism. In this case:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... econe-pine

Oh thanks for that, EA!

Steelhead, you make me LOL!

just me wrote:...
Age Equivalent Stratigraphic Markers
...

I had a sort of one-way conversation with a young-earther in Ohio a few
years back. First of all, he assured me that young earth creationism is
"fully scientific." Their experts only consult the Bible to confirm the
evidence and discoveries that creationist "scientists" first of all come up
with by studying the world itself.

Given that encouraging statement, I asked about the annual deposits made
in ancient fresh-water lakes -- the sort of "mud bands" that can be obtained
with core-drilling in lake beds, and which often show up as easily distinguishable
series of year after year of changes in the lake bottom deposits. Such core
samples' annual bands can be counted backwards for much more time than
young earth creationism allows for. A similar record of past seasonal changes
can be obtained from ice core samples, taken in the arctic and antarctic
regions -- and, again, the yearly count reaches back many thousands of
years, to a period before young earth creationism allows the world to exist.

His explanation was -- that the first 6,000 or 7,000 years (counting backwards
from very recent deposits) in such cores are reliable. But, after that particular
time period, they become useless "because of Noah's flood."

That pretty much ended the discussion.

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:
That pretty much ended the discussion.

UD

I can imagine!

EAllusion wrote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... econe-pine

Check out those sources:

D.A. Graybill (1970s), Methuselah Walk BCP Long Chronology. Measurements: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ ... /ca535.rwl
M. Matthews (2006), “Evidence for Multiple Ring Growth per Year in Bristlecone Pines,” Journal of Creation 20 no. 3 (2006):95–103.
M. Molen (2008), “The Ice Age—It Really Was Short,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. A.A. Snelling (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), pp. 339–355
J. Woodmorappe (2003a), “Field Studies in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest,” Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal 17 no. 3 (2003):119–127.
J. Woodmorappe (2003b), “Collapsing the Long Bristlecone Pine Tree Chronologies,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr., (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 491–503

I began to seriously question the young earth idea when I was 10 years old. Our family was visiting the Grand Canyon where a park ranger (obviously a Democrat) dressed in khakis and a campaign hat brought many secrets to life. At first, I wanted to dismiss it but he kept pointing to the walls of the canyon and before long, my belief had shattered. I wonder if Smokey Himself was smiling down on me...

Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

bcspace wrote:Fortunately the LDS Church encourages secular education (acceptance of the sciences) and rejects the notion of a young earth chronology being passed off for doctrine.

Doesn't seem to be the case:
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.7?lang=eng#6