> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
>
>
> On 20/04/2006 06:26, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Oh man, the things we end up discussing on this group ;-)
> >
> > Doing a googlewhack on dendrochronology, and looking at a few
> > sites, dendrochronology has the same faults that beset other
> > non-historical dating methods.
> >
> > 1) it is based on uniformitarianism. In the case of
> > dendrochronology, we have no records that the climate has
> > remained constant during the period those trees grew.
> >
> >
> This is not true. I am not an expert on this either, but I know
> more than a little from Google searches. I am almost certain that
> there is no assumption that the climate has remained constant, only
> that, as God promised, the sequence of summer and winter, each once
> per year, has continued. So there is no reliance on
> uniformitarianism, only on what God has promised.
>
> > 2) Only one ring is added per year. Yet it is known that, under
> > the right conditions, trees can add two rings per year.
> >
> >
> Yes, this is an assumption, and not always a valid one.
>
>
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
>http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/