Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2004
Previous Claim: CB440   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CB510

Claim CB501:

Two or more growth periods frequently occur during a year, so dates derived from tree rings (dendrochronology) are suspect.


Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 193.


  1. For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young.

    For most of the dendrochronological record, dates are determined from more than one source, so errors can be spotted and corrected.

  2. Dendrochronology is in rough agreement with carbon-14 dating, so even if it is off, it is not off by much -- certainly not by orders of magnitude, as young-earth claims would require.


Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? A close look at Dr. Hovind's list of young-earth arguments and other claims.
Previous Claim: CB440   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CB510

created 2003-4-21