How Creationists date rocks and fossils

Originally posted by sonhouse
You may have read that but I bet for sure it would have come from a creationist site. Real science shows there cannot be more than one per year and if it ever happens it would be such a low anomaly as to not degrade the science of tree ring dating.

I don't think you have CLUE as to how tree rings can be used to date stuff older than the living trees we see today.

Even if there is one ring per year, the oldest tree only dates back to a little over 4000 years. That was after the worldwide flood, what a coincidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if there is one ring per year, the oldest tree only dates back to a little over 4000 years. That was after the worldwide flood, what a coincidence.

Actually the oldest tree is more like 10,000 years old. But you would never believe that, clearly.

Why don't you google Dendrochronology and find out how they do dating past the life of one tree?

Oh, wait, I have it here, all you have to do is READ it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

Another ten second search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

If you actually read this stuff you can see where they can CORRELATE tree rings from one tree to an older one because of the common effect of climate on those trees.

But that part will undoubtedly go over your head because you don't WANT such conflicting data to be screwing up your fantasy world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually the oldest tree is more like 10,000 years old. But you would never believe that, clearly.

Why don't you google Dendrochronology and find out how they do dating past the life of one tree?

Oh, wait, I have it here, all you have to do is READ it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

Another ten second search:

http://en.wikipedi ...[text shortened]... ver your head because you don't WANT such conflicting data to be screwing up your fantasy world.

There is certainly no living tree that is that old. But even if there were, that still does not prove millions of years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is certainly no living tree that is that old. But even if there were, that still does not prove millions of years.

So you didn't read the sites. So in the end all you have is deny deny deny.

What part of correlation did you not understand? Or did you even bother to go that far with it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you didn't read the sites. So in the end all you have is deny deny deny.

What part of correlation did you not understand? Or did you even bother to go that far with it?

No I did not read it, because after what you said, I figured it must be more evolutionists propaganda.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No I did not read it, because after what you said, I figured it must be more evolutionists propaganda.

Of course, I would expect nothing else. But it is does not have anything to do with evolution.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course, I would expect nothing else. But it is does not have anything to do with evolution.

Okay, that is good, because I am primarily interested in exposing the fraud of evolution. Therefore, I will give this one to you unless you are trying to prove millions and billions of years with it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, that is good, because I am primarily interested in exposing the fraud of evolution. Therefore, I will give this one to you unless you are trying to prove millions and billions of years with it.

Just read the frigging post will you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just read the frigging post will you?

From your first reference:

Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year. Missing rings are rare in oak and elm trees—the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

Tree Ring Dating not Logical by Linking Trees Together to Increase the Date

YouTube

There are many kinds of trees that grow more than one ring per year. In the state of Georgia that is quite often the case with Loblolly Pine trees. In a year with a warm spring, hot early summer, then maybe a hurricane blows through and cools things off with a lot of water, the cycle will sometimes start over. So, in one growing season (March to October in Georgia), we can have two sets of early wood and late wood, giving two rings per year—or what we call a “real ring” and a “false ring.”

Check out the following:

http://www.icr.org/article/8050/

Re: False Rings and Missing Rings

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/dendro/false_rings_and_missing_rings.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
From your first reference:

[b]Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year. Missing rings are rare in oak and elm trees—the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w ...[text shortened]... s and Missing Rings

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/dendro/false_rings_and_missing_rings.htm[/b]

So what? They use trees that have known 1 year tree ring growth.

Big deal.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what? They use trees that have known 1 year tree ring growth.

Big deal.

So what? It's nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So what? [b]It's nonsense.[/b]

It would be for someone mentally living in the tenth century. For us actually here in the 21st, it's a different story. You see, we can actually follow logical trails to their obvious conclusions. You on the other hand, being a tenth century man mentally, have only your one trick pony to fall back on despite centuries of scientific advancement that every day gives more and more truth to the idea creationism and YEC in particular is about as valid as any other creation tale like the ones spouted in ancient Greece or Rome.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It would be for someone mentally living in the tenth century. For us actually here in the 21st, it's a different story. You see, we can actually follow logical trails to their obvious conclusions. You on the other hand, being a tenth century man mentally, have only your one trick pony to fall back on despite centuries of scientific advancement that every da ...[text shortened]... ar is about as valid as any other creation tale like the ones spouted in ancient Greece or Rome.

I don't no why you argue with him he is a nut job.

Originally posted by redbarons
I don't no why you argue with him he is a nut job.

LOL.
I am afraid I have learned long ago he is something just a bit worse than a "nut job"! Just for starters, I am afraid his delusional way of thinking is just a small step away from flying airplanes into tall buildings.

Originally posted by humy
LOL.
I am afraid I have learned long ago he is something just a bit worse than a "nut job"! Just for starters, I am afraid his delusional way of thinking is just a small step away from flying airplanes into tall buildings.

My way of thinking is getting more and more common with scientists as they learn more about real science.