>From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:23 PM
>The statement about the 2350 BC date possibly being "the start of Chinese
>history" reflects the opinion of a Professor of Palaeoecology named Mike
>Baillie. He is an authority on the use of tree rings in dating ancient
>events. My name is Mike, but I'm not him.
Mike, I know who you are and I know from your post about Baillie. But since
you quoted him, and spoke approvingly about his work, I thought I should
point out that the part on China is not correct. I did screw up by saying
you wrote that and for that I will take my 50 lashes.
His studies show that in
>5,000 years our entire earth has experienced five separate
>periods of major change (between 2354 and 2345 BC, 1628 and 1623
>BC, 1159 and
>1141 BC, 208 and 204 BC, and AD 536 and 545). I believe his
>findings in these
>matters are scientifically sound.
Have you actually looked at the data? The rings themselves? Are you aware
that Baillie is connecting the 2350 event with the Irish Annals?
"It has to be noted that Warner sees the 2354 BC to 2345 BC event as very
close to one of only four major disasters recorded in the Anno Mundi section
of the Irish Annals. One of these references bears the date AM 2820 (which
Warner interprets as "2380 BC") and says 'Nine thousand ... died in one
week. Ireland was thirty years waste' (i.e. to 2350 "BC"). A coincidence
perhaps? In fact, although Warner draws attention to the human aspect of
catastrophe in the Annals, it transpires that things are even more curious.
The Annals go on to say that in "about AM 2859 and after" (i.e. "2341 BC"
and after) "lakes erupted". Of course we know that these ancient annals have
no basis in fact - or do they? Incredibly, there is an even more bizarre
What strikes me as odd about this is that the Irish didn't know how to write
until well after Christ. Ogam was the first written language of either
Scotland or Ireland and it appears about 650 AD.
http://www.islandnet.com/~edonon/translat.html. Yet Baillie is correlating
something from a book written nearly 3000 years after the event and acting
like that is a good correlation and historical data point. Indeed, Baillie
even says that they know that the Annals have no basis in fact, but he still
cites them. This is horrible as a methodology.
If you want to see an Ogam (or Ogham) script go to my web page at
http://dad.iamadan.com/scotland.htm and choose the second item "Versailles,
Stone Circles, Brandsbutt Stone, St. Andrews" and the next to last picture
is the Brandsbutt stone which is about 20 miles from my house. It has an
Ogham script on it.
However, his opinions of what caused
>earth's climate to change at those times do not appear nearly so
>And some of his opinions on what some of those changes in climate may have
>brought about seem to be fanciful in the extreme.
He says in one paper it was due to a volcanic eruption. THere is nothing
unusual about that.
>Since the time of the major climate change which tree ring studies
>occurred in about 2350 BC exactly corresponds to the date Bishop Ussher
>assigned to Noah's flood by means of his famous study of biblical
Do you really trust a guy with that kind of approach to history and science?
>it seems reasonable to suggest that the climate change which
>occurred at that
>time may have had something to do with the flood. However, as you
>with your "Chinese history" comments, some of the other dating of
>events which he connects these climate change dates to seems
>totally off the
so is his connection with the Irish Annals. So do we really know he has his
tree ring work correct?
> Like you, I do not agree with some of Baillie's conclusions.
Good! Then why cite his tree rings as evidence of climate change? Is this
guy even trustworthy?
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 16:40:40 EDT