Re: Four Rivers Revisited

Allen Roy (
Sun, 2 May 1999 21:18:16 -0700

> From:
> Wait a minute. The tree rings are almost always annual rings which can
> counted. This is very concrete. Also, the problems of matching the
> from one tree to another are minor.

Please take note of the my other posting C-14/Dendrochronology. Its not
that simple.

> The validation of the essential validity of C-14 dating from
> is so solid that Dr. Gerald Aardsma, a nuclear physicist, a specialist
> C-14 dating and a one-time teacher for the Creation Science Institute,
> to the conclusion that since C-14 dating according to creation science
> could only be valid after the Flood, the Flood must have occurred prior
> 9300 BC. His expertise combined with his clinging to basic creation
> theory, yet still losing his job tells me that his understanding of this
> issue is too fact-informed for either himself or the Creation Science
> Institute to get around. As Aardsma said to a believer in the validity
> the genealogically derived dates who implied that the confirmation of
> dating by dendrochronology was just tentative,

Aardsma is entitled to his opinion, but I don't agree. See the other

> Although the tree-ring sequence does show, as you say, that the dates are

> inflated; it is important to admit that they are *systematically*
> so that the validity of C-14 dating is not in doubt. The C-14 dates
> have to be calibrated with the tree ring sequence to be true dates.

Take a look at the other posting.

> The validity of C-14 dating was not accepted even in the non-Christian
> community of scientists and historians without being subjected to serious

> scrutiny. The fact that it has been accepted by virtually all
> the great majority of Christian scientists and historians including most
> scholarly Evangelicals such as Edwin Yamauchi and now even by a professor

> from the heartland of creation science tells me that it has a very firm
> foundation in fact.

Take a look at the other posting.

> Unless you can offer facts which falsify (not just propagandistically and

> rhetorically throw doubt upon) the validation of C-14 dating by
> dendrochronolgy, I think you must face making the same kind of decision
> Aardsma made about the date of the Flood.

Take a look at the other posting.