Dendrochronology and Young Earth

[_Themis]

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.

What is really significant is the use of different independent dating methods to each other.

[_just me]

What is really significant is the use of different independent dating methods to each other.

Exactly. Scientists know that each dating method can have drawbacks. They try to use at least two methods so that an accurate date range can be found.

All these fantastic dating methods have really changed the world of archaeology and our understanding of human development. I would like to know how a Young Earther can dismiss every single method.

[_SteelHead]

Because of the methodology. A young earther knows the conclusion and so forces the data and the model to fit. Which causes so incredible amounts of awful "science".

The stupid.
It burns!

[_bcspace]

Oh, good: another endless parade of disingenuous "Nuh-uh!" regarding the clear fact that the LDS Church's teachings specifically disavow evolution, and that LDS lesson manuals tout young-Earth creationist talking points. Indeed, no point of fact is too obvious or irrefutable to preclude lying for the Lord, as bcspace is yet again demonstrating.

I've answered every one of those objections and there has been nothing but silence or teeth gnashing from you afterwards.

[_sansfoy]

Oh, good: another endless parade of disingenuous "Nuh-uh!" regarding the clear fact that the LDS Church's teachings specifically disavow evolution, and that LDS lesson manuals tout young-Earth creationist talking points. Indeed, no point of fact is too obvious or irrefutable to preclude lying for the Lord, as bcspace is yet again demonstrating.

I've answered every one of those objections and there has been nothing but silence or teeth gnashing from you afterwards.

Bcspace, would you say it's fair to to assert that while there is no consensus, that the majority of high church leaders seem to have believed in young earth creationism?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I've answered every one of those objections
...

I must have missed the part where you admitted that the LDS Church
teaches that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve who lived
in what is now Missouri about 8,000 years ago.

My conclusion is that we are descended from an early human species
that lived in what is now Africa about a million years ago.

Who is right, upon this topic? -- the Prophets & General Authorities of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the world's scientists?

UD

[_Darth J]

Oh, good: another endless parade of disingenuous "Nuh-uh!" regarding the clear fact that the LDS Church's teachings specifically disavow evolution, and that LDS lesson manuals tout young-Earth creationist talking points. Indeed, no point of fact is too obvious or irrefutable to preclude lying for the Lord, as bcspace is yet again demonstrating.

I've answered every one of those objections and there has been nothing but silence or teeth gnashing from you afterwards.

Was that before or after you scored 500 points in the last game of the NBA Finals and flew home in the Millennium Falcon?

[_bcspace]

Still waiting for unresolved objections. None? I thought so. Let me know if you come up with any.

[_Darth J]

Nuh-uh!!!!

[_Nightlion]

That pretty much ended the discussion.

UD

I can imagine!

Not quite. The epoch that was before the foundation of the earth was the proto preexistence. THEN the earth was made and Adam and Eve were called forth, resurrected to glory in the likeness and image of God and commanded to multiply and replenish the world that they were given and it took hmmm how long for them to finish all the hosts thereof as recorded n the creation chronology? THEN the went into the Garden of Eden and the six thousand years continued after the Fall. Get your ducks in a row folks
\