Danny Denier:
"Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is an inexact science.
Besides, the oldest living tree, the Bristlecone Pine, is post-flood, so it is not much help to Bible deniers." In fact, tree rings can be an exact science for people who know how to count.
Estimates can be necessary when ancient trees are found buried in an archaeological site.
But if the site itself can be dated by, for example, historical documents (think Pompey & Vesuvius) then tree rings can be measured, matched & counted backwards.
Wet years & dry years are recorded in tree rings and these can be "wiggle matched" across different samples, etc.
Danny Denier: "Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering."
Mythological problems, suitable for denier purposes only.
In fact:
- "Ice cores can be dated using counting of annual layers in their uppermost layers.
Dating the ice becomes harder with depth. Other ways of dating ice cores include:
- geochemisty,
- wiggle matching of ice core records to insolation time series (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010),
- layers of volcanic ash (tephra) (Vinther et al., 2006),
- electrical conductivity, and
- using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships (Mulvaney et al., 2012), combined with
- firn densification modeling to estimate the delta-age (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).
Usually multiple methods are used to improve accuracy.
Common global stratigraphic markers are palaeo-events that occur worldwide synchronously, and can allow wiggle-matching between ice cores and other palaeo archives (e.g., marine sediment cores).
For the ice matrix, these global stratigraphic markers can include spikes in volcanic ash (each volcanic eruption has a unique chemical signature), or volcanic sulfate spikes. 8). For the gas phase, methane, and oxygen-18 isotopic ratio of O2 have been used (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).
9). Uranium has been used to date the Dome C ice core from Antarctica.
Dust is present in ice cores, and it contains Uranium.
The decay of 238U to 234U from dust in the ice matrix can be used to provide an additional core chronology.
10) Beryillium-10 has also been used to date ice cores."
Ten different ways to use ice cores in dating ancient events & conditions.
![]()
>>Danny Denier: “Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is an inexact science. Besides, the oldest living tree, the Bristlecone Pine, is post-flood, so it is not much help to Bible deniers.”
>>Delusional Joey said, “In fact, tree rings can be an exact science for people who know how to count.”
Only to the delusional, Joey. It is, however, a fact that old-earther assumptions and desires tend to cloud the interpretation of any data.
The number of tree rings formed in a year is variable, depending on the climate and other factors; and there have been wild climate swings since the flood.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said, “Estimates can be necessary when ancient trees are found buried in an archaeological site. But if the site itself can be dated by, for example, historical documents (think Pompey & Vesuvius) then tree rings can be measured, matched & counted backwards. Wet years & dry years are recorded in tree rings and these can be “wiggle matched” across different samples, etc.”
Tree ring dating from archaeological sites are valid only for the general area of the site in which the tree is found.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering.”
>>Delusional Joey said, “Mythological problems, suitable for denier purposes only. In fact: “Ice cores can be dated using counting of annual layers in their uppermost layers. Dating the ice becomes harder with depth. Other ways of dating ice cores include: geochemisty, wiggle matching of ice core records to insolation time series (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010), layers of volcanic ash (tephra) (Vinther et al., 2006), electrical conductivity, and using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships (Mulvaney et al., 2012), combined with firn densification modeling to estimate the delta-age (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).”
There are way too many assumptions built into old-earth methodology to be believable, Joey. Foremost, the layers are not necessarily annual; and circular reasoning is utilized to adjust counts to fit old-earth expectations.
At current average precipation rates, the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets would form in only 10,000 and 5,000 years, respectively, absent melting, which mocks the hundreds of thousands of years claimed under old-earth models. Even then, the supposed “annual” layers of the Greenland GISP2 were far fewer than predicted, by about half.
In the flood model, the ice age that followed was generated by much higher precipication rates from evaporative ocean water warmed by widespread geological upheavels.
*****************
>>Delusional Joey said, “Ten different ways to use ice cores in dating ancient events & conditions. “
Yeah, sure. Perhaps you will pick any one of them and explain how it works, and how accuracy is determined.
Mr. Kalamata