Adam When?

    In 1969 it was reported that tree-ring specimens had been found which provided a continuous record back to 500 B.C.¹ By the year 1972 five tree-ring specimens had been integrated into a tree-ring chronology dating from the period 5000 B.C. to about 6200 B.C.² By the year 1983 additional specimens had been found which seems to fit into the tree-ring chronology of this period, back to a date of 6700 B.C.

    However, because the flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C., it would be impossible for a tree-ring specimen to have remained in situ through the flood. Therefore, the earliest specimens that can be found and integrated into a tree-ring chronology must be dated no earlier than 4990 B.C. Thus, it would appear that the tree-ring chronology must be restudied with this in mind. Obviously various assumptions are introduced when cross dating of a living tree with a dead tree is attempted. Yet this is the means by which dating has been extended back to a year far earlier than the approximate year 2600 B.C., which is the earliest year for a live tree. Because we know the dating of the Bible is absolutely accurate, we know that these assumptions have introduced error into the attempts to date older dead trees by cross dating methods.


    ¹Ferguson, C.S., 1969. A 7104 year annual tree-ring chronology for bristlecone pine, Pinus ariatata, from the White Mountains, California, in “Tree Ring Bulletin,” vol. 29, nos. 3-4.

    ²Ferguson, C. S., 1972. Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine prior to 4000 B.C. in “Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Radiocarbon Dating,” vol. 1, Organizing Institution, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Civic Centre, Lower Hutt City, Wellington, N.Z, p. 22.