The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

P2YrsL t-values of 4.4-32.4, with: 1 st quartile 8.7, median 11.1, and 3 rd quartile 14.3. For FIN series, crossmatched against the FIN master chronology, the corresponding values are: 3.4-25.0, 8.6, 10.4, and 12.8. Thus, my experimental iterative removal of t-value crossmatches, in the 10-13 range (Figure 7, bottom), albeit against the combined TRN/FIN master chronology, corresponds to the disqualification of roughly the lowest 50%-75% master-matching series. 4. Obvious and Subtle Candidate Locations of “Bridges” As is the case with the progressive removal of the worst “few6matchers” (Figure 7, top), it is the 2 nd , 5 th , and 6 th millennia BC that are the most susceptible to “holing” by the progressive removal of series with relatively low crossmatches to the master chronology (Figure 7, bottom). Moreover, as this process continues, “holes” also appear in the 3 rd and 4 th millennia BC. In addition (not shown), lacunae also appear in the very early 1 st millennium BC. It is not surprising both sets of relative weakness (top and bottom, Figure 7) largely coincide: Intervals of the master chronology only consisting of “few6matchers” have relatively little common variance that can “reverberate” into a large (here t>13.0) master chronology effect. Those with “many6matchers”, by the very fact of being “many6matchers”, have a good deal of common variance “stored” amongst them that can do so. However, owing to the vagaries inherent in the expression of the common variance that constitutes the master chronology, this is not always the case. The junctures of the subchronologies (Figure 6) do not necessarily correspond to “bridges”, as these apparent zones of weakness need not remain so. They eventually become reinforced by the averaging- together of the overlapping edges of the subchronologies, by the manual addition of individual series done in order to create effective crossmatches between the subchronologies, and, finally, by the “mopping up” of the remaining series that are added to the chronology once it has been fully assembled together. [At time of the early stage shown as Figure 6, there still are 238 unclaimed FIN series that will eventually be fitted-in!] The results of Figure 7 (top and bottom) are not meant to imply that the “strong spots” necessarily correspond only to the “cores” and the “weak spots” only to the “bridges” specified by the Disturbance-Clustering hypothesis. However, it stands to reason that a largely-fortuitous process (“bridge” building) is more likely to account for a “weak spot” than a “strong spot”. What about potential locations of “bridges” that are not intuitively obvious? To help answer this, let us now consider the Disturbance- Clustering hypothesis in the light of the P2Aut process. As just noted, the reader should not suppose that “bridges” are potentially limited to those parts of the chronology that have to be produced though the manual, one-at-a-time addition of qualifying series (Figure 6) or to the sites of conspicuous “weak spots” (Figure 7, top and bottom) in the finished master chronology. “Bridges” can also automatically be created within a subchronology created by P2Aut t≥7.0 itself. One potential indicator of this occurs during the execution of P2Aut, and as displayed on the onscreen CDendro printout situated the bottom of the computer screen. The onscreen printout generates a running list of the series that are being “picked up”, along with the t-value of their respective crossmatches with the emerging master chronology. One may observe several series autoadd at, say, t>12, then a series autoadds though barely qualifying at t=7.0, and then more series autoadd at, say, t>12. The barely-qualifying series may be the “bridge” that enables the second group to “join with” the first. If P2Aut is re-run with the barely-qualifying series unchecked (omitted), and one finds that the second-group series fail to be “picked up” by P2Aut, this suggests a “bridge” role of the omitted barely-qualifying series. If, furthermore, no substitute series can be found that will induce P2Aut to “pick up” the second-group series, this conclusion is greatly strengthened. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that series in the long chronology number in the thousands, it is not feasible to manually search for potential “bridges” within P2Aut t≥7.0 subchronologies according to the criteria described in the last paragraph. It is hoped that one day a computer program will be developed that could automatically do so. For more on the search for “bridge” sites, see “ Future Research ” on “ Automated Creation …” Finally, it is possible that some “bridges” is entirely “seamless”, and hence not apparent during the P2Aut process, if at all. DISCUSSION: THE “MISFIRING” OF TREE-RING DISTURBANCES As noted earlier, tree ring sequences, in terms of crossmatching characteristics, are typically distinctive. Given normal (i. e, climatic) circumstances, they either crossmatch with a geographically close, contemporary tree at a unique crossmatching point, or they do not convincingly crossmatch at all. However, if the sequences are shorter than 70 and especially 50 years, they can fortuitously crossmatch, to a convincing degree, in wrong places. 1. Subsuming Non-Ideal Behavior Within the Repetitive Aspects of Tree-Ring Chronologies Since erroneous short-series crossmatchings are ubiquitous, they cannot qualify as evidence for the actual-contemporaneity of many of the trees that comprise the long tree-ring chronologies. However, by their very presence, they can serve as “camouflage” for non- ideal behavior in the hypothesized tree-ring-perturbing processes shown in the Figures 1 and 2. That is, some 50 years (often more, and occasionally substantially more) of tree rings could be “skipped” entirely by the perturbing processes, and the resulting contemporaneity-betraying short-to-medium crossmatches could be hidden amongst all the short-to-medium-segment fortuitous crossmatchings that normally occur in any case. Now consider what I informally call mosaic-segment crossmatching: That is, for example, the first 50 years (sometimes more) of a 100-year old tree can convincingly crossmatch against a tree that had ostensibly lived at one time, while the remaining 50 years (sometimes more) of the same 100-year old tree convincingly can crossmatch against a tree that had ostensibly lived at a very different time. As an example of mosaic crossmatching, consider the 120 year-long TRN series of 0022115A (5168-5049 BC). The “Create sample from block” [make a segment cut out of the original series] function of CDendro shows that, besides matching the TRN master chronology at the correct location, the older half of that series (5168-5110 BC) crossmatches with the master at the (2884- 2826 BC) interval at r=0.52 and t=4.3; while the younger half of that series (5109-5049 BC) manages to crossmatch with the master Woodmorappe ◀ Tree-ring chronology shortening via disturbances ▶ 2018 ICC 667