Originally posted by sonhouse
YOU didn't 'give' anything. YOU just presented bogus religious political pseudoscience nonsense cleverly designed to capture voters to further their vain efforts to topple evolution and force creationism to be taught as if it were a science.

That tactic will never work, despite all your nutter efforts.

Even if you could add the rings of different trees together to get older dates than 4,000 to 6,000 year, your evolutionists haven't been able to justify more than about 11,000 to 12,000 years even in their delusional thinking. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if you could add the rings of different trees together to get older dates than 4,000 to 6,000 year, your evolutionists haven't been able to justify more than about 11,000 to 12,000 years even in their delusional thinking. 😏

you Hinds are a waste of oxygen.

Originally posted by redbadger
you Hinds are a waste of oxygen.

And redbadger is a waste of shyte. 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if you could add the rings of different trees together to get older dates than 4,000 to 6,000 year, your evolutionists haven't been able to justify more than about 11,000 to 12,000 years even in their delusional thinking. 😏

It's not 'even if' it is an absolute fact they can match ring patterns from different trees and OF COURSE they don't go back much more than 12,000 odd years, nobody EVER said you can get a million years out of dendrochronology.

But you are sticking to your story, the Earth is 6000 odd years old. No more.

NOT 12,000. So tree ring data spells the doom of your pathetic 6000 years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's not 'even if' it is an absolute fact they can match ring patterns from different trees and OF COURSE they don't go back much more than 12,000 odd years, nobody EVER said you can get a million years out of dendrochronology.

But you are sticking to your story, the Earth is 6000 odd years old. No more.

NOT 12,000. So tree ring data spells the doom of your pathetic 6000 years.

If you admit that you cannot get millions of years our of dendrochronology, then it does your evilution theory no good. And it is a big stretch from 4,000 years to 12,000 year when they must rely on a whole lot of assuming and luck to get there. So I don't think the young age of the earth theory is even close to being debunked and 6,000 years is a good approximation still. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you admit that you cannot get millions of years our of dendrochronology, then it does your evilution theory no good. And it is a big stretch from 4,000 years to 12,000 year when they must rely on a whole lot of assuming and luck to get there. So I don't think the young age of the earth theory is even close to being debunked and 6,000 years is a good approximation still. 😏

It is good that you are not the Tzar of science, able to just dismiss such data with a wave of your hand. The REAL world knows full well how old Earth is. People who think Earth is only a few thousand years old and Mt. Everest was not very tall 5000 years ago are so sadly deluded they need to be taken care of in an institute, the institute for the hopelessly duped.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is good that you are not the Tzar of science, able to just dismiss such data with a wave of your hand. The REAL world knows full well how old Earth is. People who think Earth is only a few thousand years old and Mt. Everest was not very tall 5000 years ago are so sadly deluded they need to be taken care of in an institute, the institute for the hopelessly duped.

I have a different opinion and different opinions have resulted in the advancement of science. 😏