How Creationists date rocks and fossils

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are only supposed to use a zinger once.

I can't help it, it's a zinger that keeps on zinging.

Originally posted by whodey
I can't help it, it's a zinger that keeps on zinging.

So you like zinging in the rain?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So making just those three dudes live 70 years instead of 700+ runs that 6000 years down to about 4,000. So the whole thing is bogus double. There are TREES with rings older than 4000 years and they can correlate tree rings from several trees to go back further than that, like 10,000 years just from tree ring data.

I have already given you information on why trying to link trees together to increase the ages does not work and is bogus science. Why don't you pay attention? Also there is the problem of false tree rings.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creationists use eyewitness and historical accounts in dating rocks and fossils.

I am curious what you think an eyewitness account would look like for dating a fossil? A parchment tucked into a crock stating something like "So-&-so buried these dinosaur bones today in the year of the death of King So-&-so" ? And we just happen to know when that king died from other historical records ?

Originally posted by moonbus
I am curious what you think an eyewitness account would look like for dating a fossil? A parchment tucked into a crock stating something like "So-&-so buried these dinosaur bones today in the year of the death of King So-&-so" ? And we just happen to know when that king died from other historical records ?

Something like this that is shown in the following videos:

Fossils in Layers Made By Mt. St. Helens

YouTube

Geo-Blunder: No "Millions of Years"! (Dr. Steven Austin)

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already given you information on why trying to link trees together to increase the ages does not work and is bogus science. Why don't you pay attention? Also there is the problem of false tree rings.

So have you read your quote mining book yet?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So have you read your quote mining book yet?

No. I am not familar with such a book. What is the name of it and how can I get one?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already given you information on why trying to link trees together to increase the ages does not work and is bogus science. Why don't you pay attention? Also there is the problem of false tree rings.

You like to give words. You have no science to show only poo poo it's not right.
Repeat till you puke, That's all you have. Dendrochronology is established beyond doubt. Except for you and all the other asssholes who think the Earth is a few thousand years old.

You didn't even look at the link I provided showing how tree rings can be correlated because of the differences in width.

You just keep hammering with your 'you can't rule out multiple tree rings per year' BS that you have been programmed to say and think.

You don't think for yourself, you don't do independent research, or even independent fact checks. Whatever bullshyte some YEC'er assshole says is golden for you despite the fact they are talking out their ass.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You like to give words. You have no science to show only poo poo it's not right.
Repeat till you puke, That's all you have. Dendrochronology is established beyond doubt. Except for you and all the other asssholes who think the Earth is a few thousand years old.

You didn't even look at the link I provided showing how tree rings can be correlated because ...[text shortened]... yte some YEC'er assshole says is golden for you despite the fact they are talking out their ass.

False rings are not bullshyte, it's established fact. And Mount St. Helens has proven that sedimentary layers can be layed down quickly and fossils have been found in those layers. So those millions and billions of years is bullshyte.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism

RJ, any thoughts on the dating of meteorites, in the sense of timing when they formed as small objects from a larger parent body?

Here is a link to that one that came down over Siberia last year:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/24/5747998/chelyabinsk-meteor-hit-another-asteroid-290-million-years-ago

Originally posted by RJHinds
False rings are not bullshyte, it's established fact. And Mount St. Helens has proven that sedimentary layers can be layed down quickly and fossils have been found in those layers. So those millions and billions of years is bullshyte.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism

Just like your bogus attack on C14 as a clock, they actually are a lot smarter than most ANY creationist and see where it can work and where it cannot.

Just because there may be false rings doesn't mean they ALL are false. So dendrochronoligists have worked through all the BS you grip about and are still able to do real tree ring time lines back 10 or 20 thousand years back.

Because when a forest undergoes an environmental stressor like drought, ALL the trees respond the same or most of them any way, with narrower rings that year.

So if there are overlapping tree lines in various tree ring count, they can see the patterns of thin vs thick lines and tree A may have part of the puzzle but they find tree B a few years or decades older and they can match the thin vs thick lines and come up with a perfectly valid time line.

You ONLY poo poo that because of your paranoid OCD delusional 10th century completely programmed mindset that will never understand true science.

Your so-called rebuttals aren't even your own, all you are is an intellectually dishonest parrot.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
RJ, any thoughts on the dating of meteorites, in the sense of timing when they formed as small objects from a larger parent body?

Here is a link to that one that came down over Siberia last year:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/24/5747998/chelyabinsk-meteor-hit-another-asteroid-290-million-years-ago

We could make one hypothesis after another and it would still be only an hypthesis (a guess). My guess is that it was less than about 6000 years ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just like your bogus attack on C14 as a clock, they actually are a lot smarter than most ANY creationist and see where it can work and where it cannot.

Just because there may be false rings doesn't mean they ALL are false. So dendrochronoligists have worked through all the BS you grip about and are still able to do real tree ring time lines back 10 or 2 ...[text shortened]... ur so-called rebuttals aren't even your own, all you are is an intellectually dishonest parrot.

What did you not understand about this:

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

YouTube

Another debate that RJHind fails...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Another debate that RJHind fails...

I declare a win by default.