Correspondence: Tree Rings
December 5, 2006
[Note that the original article pointed to by the following link has now been replaced with a new article by another author. --- Dr. Aardsma, January 2014.]
I'm just wondering how Dr. Aardsma might respond to this article:
"Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)," by Don Batten.
Thanks and blessings,
I would mainly point out that Dr. Batten has failed to address (or even acknowledge) a quantitative argument contrary to his conclusion which I presented within the standard creationist literature years ago (Gerald E. Aardsma, "Tree-ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth per Year", Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol 29, 1993, 184--189).
See http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php for more factual information contrary to Dr. Batten's claims.
December 31, 2013
I read your website article on radiocarbon dating assumptions. I noticed you claimed that we can calibrate carbon-14 levels using tree rings up to ten thousand years. I was wondering where you are getting these numbers? I looked up the ages of the oldest living trees. The oldest were about 4.5 to 5 thousand years old. I looked at your references and found nothing citing any living trees that were older than what I could find.
The trees used to calibrate radiocarbon do not all need to be living. They only need to be linked to one another through the pattern of their ring widths in a continuous tree ring chronology from the present to however far back one can find preserved dead wood. At present this extends back about 12,600 years (see for example: Paula J Reimer et al., ``IntCal13 and Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0--50,000 Years Cal BP,'' Radiocarbon 55.4 (2013): 1869--1887).