Claim CB501:
Two or more growth periods frequently occur during a year, so dates
derived from tree rings (dendrochronology) are suspect.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, 193.
Response:
- For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and
douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little
practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can
have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from
dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too
young.
For most of the dendrochronological record, dates are determined from
more than one source, so errors can be spotted and corrected.
- Dendrochronology is in rough agreement with carbon-14 dating, so even
if it is off, it is not off by much -- certainly not by orders of
magnitude, as young-earth claims would require.
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close
look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof27
created 2003-4-21
