Dendrochronology is the study of time and climate through the evidence of tree-rings and related data. There are several thousand dendrochronologies currently being used and expanded in the world, some of these are "floating" chronologies (where the end dates are not know) and some are absolute. At first blush one would not think that young earth creationists (YEC) would have a problem with something that doesn't measure ages in the billions of years.
However the YEC problem is that the chronological age of several tree-ring dendrochronologies are older than their model for the age of the earth. Two continuous absolute dendrochronologies make the concept of a world wide flood invalid for any time in the last 8,000 years.
Creationists often refer to what I call "creatortionista" sites without realizing that what they are using is invalid. I define "creatortionista" as people and sites are that intentionally misrepresent the truth to delude a gullible public. Let's look at an example of what I mean.
Don Batten wrote "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" attempting to discredit the whole field of dendrochronology in order to maintain a delusion in a young earth, and in that article he says:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 (9)
quote:
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.
The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be "incorrect" (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 "age"). So the carbon "date" is used to constrain just which match is acceptable.
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. ... Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
Nothing like being up-front with your presuppositions and pre-denial of evidence. Rule out any conclusion that could invalidate your concept before you actually look at the data?
He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas, that confirm the information from these two trees: dendrochronologies are built from many overlapping specimens, not from single trees.
Notice two things: first is the intentional mis-direction to a completely different species that grows in a different environment (with the implication that they are the same - the hallmark of a scam and a con), and second is that he
knows that there were "up to five rings
per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled. We'll look at both these issues in greater detail:
Misdirection and Misinformation
The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud. The genus
Pinus - which includes all pine trees - includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions:
Strobus (white or soft pines),
Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and
Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus
Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus
Ducampopinus.
Now let's look into his claim of using a "similar" species. First the Monterey Pine:
http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html (10)
quote:
The currently accepted scientific name of Monterey pine is Pinus radiata D. Don [12,31,32,33,43]. There are three recognized varieties [10,38]:Pinus radiata var. radiata
Pinus radiata var. binata Lemmon
Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis (Howell) Axelrod.
Monterey pine hybridizes with knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) and bishop pine (Pinus muricata) [12,32,25].
The typical variety of Monterey pine occurs along the coast of California in three disjunct populations in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Monterey County, and San Luis Obispo County. Pinus radiata var. binata occurs on Guadalupe Island, Mexico [12,32,33,35,42]. Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis is found on Cedros Island, Mexico [10,12,38].
Monterey pine is part of the coastal closed-cone coniferous woodland [23].
See an image of the
Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata (3).
quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, 4 to 6 inches long, 3 per fascicle, slender; shiny green; persist 3 years
The Bristlecone Pine chronology does not rely on just one species, but uses two closely related species for a cross-reference:
Bristlecone Growth (14)
quote:
On dry windswept mountaintops of the Great Basin in the western United States grow earth's oldest living inhabitants, the bristlecones (Pinus longaeva, Pinus aristata). Many of the trees living today were seedlings when the pyramids were being constructed, mature in the time of Christ, and ancient patriarchs today. Bristlecones occur in only six western states, but of these the oldest are found at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California.
The bristlecone has adjusted to places on earth that no other tree wants to inhabit, and in these harsh environments, has flourished, free of competition.
Until 1970 bristlecones were regarded as a single species. D.K. Bailey, an amateur botanist, demonstrated that the western most trees differ enough in structure of their needles and cones from the bristlecones of the eastern region, to warrant a new species name, Pinus longaeva.
Bristlecones don't grow very tall, 60 ft. (18.3m) at the most, but usually much less. Girth of the largest one, the Patriarch is 36' 8" (11.2m), and this tree is relatively young at 1,500 years. The average age is about 1,000 years with only a few over 4,000 years. The oldest trees grow on outcrops of dolomitean alkaline calcareous substrate of low nutrient but of higher moisture content than the surrounding sandstone. The dolomite can reflect more sunlight than other rocks, contributing to cooler root zones, and saving moisture.
Spring comes to the bristlecone pines in early May with the melting of snow and higher temperatures. Each year the tree increases in girth only 1/100th of an inch, often less, and new cones and twigs are formed. In this subalpine zone there are only three warm summer months, often only 6 weeks, to produce growth and reserves for overwintering. All of this must be accomplished on a mere 10" (25.4cm) precipitation.
Description of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone Pine:
http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html (11)
quote:
Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine, Great Basin bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), and foxtail pine (P. balfouriana) share a common ancestor [114,149]. Taxa within the bristlecone-foxtail pine complex (Pinus, subgenus Strobus, section Parrya Mayr, subsection Balfourianae Englm.) are distinguished by growth form, bark, and differences in chemical composition [8,31,90,97]. Bristlecone and foxtail pines readily produce fertile hybrids in the laboratory [128,149]. Disjunct distributions, and possibly other factors, prevent natural hybridization among the 3 species.
Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine occurs in upper montane and subalpine communities [146]. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) associate with Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine throughout most of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range. Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine tends to exclude Engelmann spruce and limber pine on upper subalpine and timberline sites. Even in lower subalpine sites, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine is more common in mesic areas than limber pine [104]. Brunstein [22] noted limber pine was absent from Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities on the east slope of the Park Range of Colorado. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) may co-occur throughout Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range on seral sites including burns. Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) also occurs on new burns and other disturbed sites in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities [70,104].
See an image of the
Rocky Mountain Bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata (1).
quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, short (1 to 1 1/2 inches long), curved, fascicles of 5, dark green but usually covered with white dots of dried resin. Remain on tree for 10-17 years, giving a bushy appearance that resembles a fox's tail.
Description of the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine:
http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html (12)
quote:
Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs in a relatively narrow latitudinal range in California, Nevada, and Utah [86,94]. In California it occurs on the summits of the Panamint, Inyo, and White mountains of Mono and Inyo counties [53]. In Nevada it has scattered occurrences on high mountain ranges from the White Mountains in Esmeralda County; north to the southern Ruby Mountains of south-central Elko County; south to the Spring Mountains of west-central Clark County; and east to the Ruby Mountains and Snake Range of White Pine County [31,63,94]. In western Utah Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs on the western edge of the Colorado Plateau from the Confusion Range of Millard County; north to the Uinta Mountains of Summit, Wasatch, and Duchesne counties; south to the Pine Valley Mountains of Washington County and northern Kane County; and east to the Wasatch Plateau of Emery County [94,136]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of Great Basin bristlecone and Rocky Mountain pines.
The ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 bristlecone pine species for millennia.
See an image of the
Great Basin Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva (14).
The two Bristlecone Pine species have been separated for thousands of years, the Monterey Pine has been separated for much longer, especially considering the differences between the needles. What is certain is that he is comparing a
very distantly related, coastal species with two high altitude species and saying they are the same - species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}. Perhaps he
intentionally chose a species cultivated for rapid growth (for the timber industry), living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment where he can
intentionally take samples from trees that are known to frequently have false rings. Certainly Dr. Batten is not telling the truth when he says these species are comparable in the way they grow.
Dr. Batten is also not telling the full truth when he mentions the microscope, as that is not the only tool used, either by himself to identify the false rings, or by dendrochronologists that do honest work. He
knows his maximum error found occurred in a single
year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.
False Ring Identification
That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings
per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary. The only way anyone can count the number of false rings that occurred in one year is to have been able to distinguish the false rings from real ones. He does this in the same way that dendrochronologists employ to identify false rings in order to account for them in the data and make the necessary corrections. Nor does he tell you how many times false rings were found during normal growth, what the distribution of error was, or what the average error was, he just reports the maximum rate he was able to find with the implication that amount this is common in all trees all the time. Is this a 1% error or a 10% error in the life of the tree? Dr. Batten is mum on that issue.
Nobody has claimed that there are trees that produce no false rings, or no missing rings either - another common problem that makes the trees appear
younger than they really are (and which Dr. Batten in all his "honesty" fails to mention). The difference is that dendrochronologists know how to find the evidence of false rings - as does Dr. Batten when he notes "up to five rings
per year" of false rings - but they use this information to correct the chronology.
Both the species of Bristlecone Pine would not have the same numbers of false rings and missing rings, as they grow in different locations and environments, and yet the chronology that is built from their evidence is consistent from one to the other. Consistent because false rings and missing rings have been accounted for by the honest scientists.
So how do the scientists deal with these problems? Here is information from an on-line slide show on dendrochronology - pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation:
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (5)
Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.
quote:
(Slide 6)Under certain climatic conditions, some species will form intra-annual or false rings . If climatic conditions are unfavorable to growth during the growing season, the tree may mistakenly sense that the end of the season is near, and produce dark, thick-walled latewood cells. Improved conditions will cause the tree to produce lighter, thinner-walled cells once again, until the true end of the season. The resulting annual ring looks like two rings, but when this first ring is closely inspected it can be identified as false because the latewood boundary grades back into the earlywood. False rings occur in a number of species such as the Mexican cypress pictured here. Young ponderosa pines in southeastern Arizona commonly contain false rings as well. In this region, winter and early spring rains provide moisture to trees in the early part of the growing season. By May and June, the driest part of the year, trees have used up the available moisture and, if stressed enough, will begin to produce latewood cells. However, monsoon moisture usually begins to fall in July, and with this moisture, trees will again produce earlywood cells.
(Slide 7)Under other climate conditions, trees may produce only a partial ring or may fail to produce a ring at all. This may occur in a year in which conditions for growth are particularly harsh. These rings are called locally absent or missing rings and are commonly found in trees which are extremely sensitive to climate. ... This ring gets pinched between the rings to the left and right of it and is not visible at all in the lower portion of the slide. Very old and/or stressed trees may also produce very small, barely visible rings only a few cells wide which are called micro-rings. Because of the occurrence of false, locally absent, micro, and missing rings, it is especially important to prepare surfaces carefully and use the technique of crossdating to ensure exact calendar year dates for individual rings.
(Slide 8)The work of a dendrochronologist starts with the collection of samples in the field. The particular problem being addressed will dictate site and tree selection so that trees sampled are sensitive to the environmental variable of interest. ... Most commonly, tree-ring samples are collected using a hand-held increment borer to remove a small core of wood roughly 5mm in diameter from the trunk of the tree, ideally from bark to pith. ...Usually, two cores are taken from each tree to facilitate crossdating and to reduce the effects of ring-width variations related to differences in the two sides of the tree. The number of trees sampled from the site depends on how sensitive the trees are to the environment, but the average is about 20-30 trees.
Ponderosa Pines, for the record, are in the same subgenus -
Pinus - as the Moneterey Pine(7).
Of particular note is the cause of false rings with specific reference to the type of environmental conditions that would prevail in certain locations with the Monterey Pine,
Pinus radiata, used by Dr. Batten. By contrast the conditions that prevail for the Bristlecone pine,
Pinus longaeva, are more likely to produce missing or micro rings, a condition that would make the trees appear younger than they really are.
This "issue" of false rings and missing rings also would mean that there should be noticeable differences between the two different Bristlecone Pines, the European Oaks and the German Pines, for there is no reason for these trees to have same pattern of climate with age if the cause of the patterns seen is false and missing rings.
What is not mentioned by Dr. Batten in his listing of problems with accuracy is the degree of accuracy that the scientists are looking for and the amount of error that was involved. The implication is that they are big problems and big errors.
The European Oak Dendrochronology and IntCal04
The field of dendrochronology does not rest on one species, as there are many dendrochronologies. Nor is the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology the longest absolute chronology. Thus we can check the validity of the Bristlecone Pine chronology by comparing it - and the climate information - to the longer chronology of the European Oak:
Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating (13)
quote:
Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.
Because ring-porous species almost always begin annual growth with this initial flush, missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact, the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer. A volcanic eruption in the year 1815 caused much cooler temperatures globally, thus causing oak trees to remain dormant. Therefore, no clear annual ring was formed in 1816 for certain locations in Europe.
Occasionally, offsets in oak tree rings can be problematic when trying to crossdate the rings. Dendrochronologists therefore must be careful when working with oak species, as these rays can cause a misdate of one year.
Notice that the European Oak also arrives at the same dates for the same climates based on the ring data, a deciduous species as opposed to an evergreen species, one where the issue of false rings is much smaller due to the difference in growth patterns of these types of trees but that there is also a source of error that is not present in pine trees. These trees are so different from Bristlecone Pines - much greater than the difference between the Bristlecone Pine and the Monterey Pine - that the pattern of false rings, missing rings and other sources of error should produce an entirely different annual pattern of climate if the problem of false rings, missing rings was anywere near as significant as Dr. Batten claims. That this is not the case invalidates his claim.
The issue of accuracy of the dendrochronologies is discussed in the paper on the latest calibration curve for carbon-14 levels:
Not Found (15)
quote:
Tree-Ring Data Sets (0-12.4 cal kyr BP)
For inclusion in the calibration data set, dendrochronological dating and cross-checking of tree rings is required. A few exceptions were made for post-AD 1320 Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii), which have robust ring production in the Pacific Northwest environment. Calendar ages for these trees, which had well-known felling dates, were determined by ring counting after inspection of the well-developed rings by H C Fritts (Stuiver 1982). X-ray densitometry was later used to confirm the ring counts.
The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Gttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998). The North American trees that form part of the 14C calibration curve prior to AD 1320 were cross-dated with either the Sequoiadendron master chronology or with a Pacific Northwest Douglas fir chronology (Stuiver 1982).
Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).
The 2 parts of the German Preboreal pine chronology (PPC), which were formerly floating, have been linked and cross-matched dendrochronologically to the absolutely-dated Holocene oak chronology. Including additional new finds, the south German part of the PPC is prolonged into the Younger Dryas and now starts at 11,993 cal BP. New pine chronologies from Switzerland and eastern Germany extend the PPC to 12,410 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue).
The Arizona Data Set
The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically-dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04.
Notice three things: first that the German chronology was originally excluded from IntCal98 because the error from the other data was 41 years ... in a span of 9,147 years, or an error of ~0.4%, second that it is now included due to resolution of errors due to bugs, and third that the Bristlecone Pines are now excluded from the calibration data due to an error of 37 years .... in a span of 7,600 years, or an error of ~0.5%. This is the sum total amount of error that Dr. Batten implies "cast doubt" on the "clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates." The problem for Dr. Batten and the YEC crowd is that these errors can be added together and multiplied by a factor of 10 and there still would have been no world wide flood (that would have killed all trees and broken the chronology) for 12,410 - 9% = 11,293 years. As the Bristlecone Pines were included before the 41 year shift, this indicates that these errors do not add, but rather they represent the same error, ~0.5%, and the minimum age of continual tree growth is 12,410 - 0.5% = 12,348 years, older than all YEC models for the age of the earth.
False rings, missing rings and other sources of error are relatively rare and random in the growth patterns of trees, even though some species have higher susceptibility than others. Dendrochronologists use the tree species with the fewest known sources of errors, and they work to eliminate all sources of errors. They cross-check the data with other species and other locations. If dendrochronology depended on one lone species, Dr. Batten might have an argument: it doesn't.
That all the different dendrochronologies correlate with each other also refutes Dr. Batten's implication of this being a problem that science somehow has not dealt with already. If Dr. Batten really is a scientist in this field ("As a tree physiologist"), then he is aware of - and used - the techniques used by scientists for identifying false rings. That he doesn't say anything about this speaks to his "honesty" again - his willingness to misrepresent the truth is evident.
It is curious that Dr. Batten wants to be seen as a scientist on this topic, but he doesn't include any information on his methodology or his results in the paper discussed. What is he hiding other than the truth?
Conclusions
Multiple sources of data and multiple different chronologies confirm the dates and seasonal patterns that are observed in these chronologies.
The dendrochronologies extend to an age of 12,410 with an accuracy of +/-0.5% years BP.
A minimum chronological age of 12,348 years invalidates the YEC models for the age of the earth.
The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.
Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.
Dr. Batten is a fraud, a scam and a con, pretending to tell the truth to gullible people who want to believe a delusion, when in fact he is hiding the truth, misdirecting the issues and misrepresenting evidence.
Enjoy.
References
- Anonymous "Bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/...o/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm"
- Anonymous "Methuselah (tree)" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Methuselah (tree) - Wikipedia
- Anonymous "Monterey pine Pinaceae Pinus radiata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/...o/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm"
- Anonymous "Monterey Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 12 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pinus radiata - Wikipedia
- Anonymous "Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change " NOAA Paleoclimatology. Updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
- Anonymous "Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 14 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pine - Wikipedia
- Anonymous "Ponderosa Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from Pinus ponderosa - Wikipedia
- Anonymous "Prometheus (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 7 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Prometheus (tree) - Wikipedia
- Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
- Cope, Amy B., "SPECIES: Pinus radiata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html
- Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus aristata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html
- Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus longaeva - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html
- Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
- Miller, Leonard, "Growth Characteristics" Sonic.net/bristlecone. Updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Bristlecone Growth
- Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 Not Found
Where possible, I have tried to follow the standard academic procedure for citing online publications, where if you last accessed this page on January 30, 2007, and used version 1, you would cite this as:
Smith, Paul "Dendrochronolgy Fact and Creationist Fraud" EvC Forum. Ver 1 updated 27 Jan 2007 accessed 30 Jan 2007 http://
EvC Forum: Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud -->
EvC Forum: Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud
Here is a link to formal
MLA style referencing.
Edited by RAZD, : Ending not done when posted before, Subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : see http://razd.evcforum.net/dendrochronology.html for updates
Edited by RAZD, : updated
Edited by RAZD, : last url
Edited by RAZD, : Correcting P&M tree ages
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2