All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I gave you valid reasons why tree rings have
issues, these didn't come from creation sites, the CONCERNS I told you
about the very ones you DENOUNCED by the way were all validated.… (my emphasis)

Which “CONCERNS” are you referring to here? -The facts presented by the website? -if so, I didn’t “DENOUNCE” them; I agreed with them all. W ...[text shortened]... ting methods credibly could all be giving the wrong dates. Your claim is therefore groundless.[/b]

Correct it cannot be trusted because it does not do what people think, it
is not an accurate representation of time to begin with that much was
stated up front. It is more of a representation of conditional changes which
can happen several different times in a years time span with either added
rings or rings left off, both of which should at once discount the method of
tree rings as anything reliable in tracking time. You want me to go back and
bring up my misgivings and your answers to them on this topic?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who are you talking to?
KJ

Any fool who's reading this and believes that all science is incorrect if it doesn't fit with what's taught in the Bible.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Any fool who's reading this and believes that all science is incorrect if it doesn't fit with what's taught in the Bible.

Wow, am I to understand that asking you who you were talking to would
cause such a thing? Amazing, asking you who you were talking to would
lead someone to believe all science is incorrect if it doesn't fit what's taught
in the Bible! Exactly where did the Bible or science come into that question?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Correct it cannot be trusted because it does not do what people think, it
is not an accurate representation of time to begin with that much was
stated up front. It is more of a representation of conditional changes which
can happen several different times in a years time span with either added
rings or rings left off, both of which should at once discou ...[text shortened]... ou want me to go back and
bring up my misgivings and your answers to them on this topic?
Kelly

…Correct it cannot be trusted because it does not do what people think
..…

And what does it not do what people think it does? -lets see:

….it is not an ACCURATE representation of time to begin with
...… (my emphasis)

Exactly how not “ACCURATE” must it be to be “not ACCURATE” ?
The fact that the fact remains that it is in good agreement with other DIFFERENT dating methods most of the time proves that it is, by what most people would call “accurate” in every day English, accurate enough most of the time. Certainly the website didn’t say nor imply otherwise.

….You want me to go back and bring up my misgivings and your answers to them on this topic?
…

Nope -already read and debunked all that.
But I would like to challenge you to answer questions 1 and 2 in my last post as your continuous demonstration that you have no answer to them clearly debunks your central claims. Reminder:

1, How do you explain why several DIFFERENT dating methods other than radiometric dating are in good agreement with the radiometric dates if you claim that the halve-lives of the chemical elements, inexplicably (because it would break the laws of physics) and without any known cause, changed significantly with time?

-and “good agreement” in the above obviously means good agreement with each other (unlike what you suggested).

And:

2, Can you give a specific example of just ONE of these “ASSUMPTIONS/THINGS/VARIABLES” that you have been referring to in these posts that, even if it was wrong/existed, would still explain how DIFFERENT dating methods are in good agreement with each other AND yet make ALL the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wow, am I to understand that asking you who you were talking to would
cause such a thing? Amazing, asking you who you were talking to would
lead someone to believe all science is incorrect if it doesn't fit what's taught
in the Bible! Exactly where did the Bible or science come into that question?
Kelly

So why do you SELECTIVELY reject only those scientific facts and procedures that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible?
Can you give as a few examples of scientific facts and procedures that you have mentioned in your posts that you reject but DOES fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible?
-if not, then this is just too much of a coincidence that, in your posts, you ONLY reject only those scientific facts and procedures that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -you are purposely rejecting selected parts science -Proper Knob had hit it on the nail.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So why do you SELECTIVELY reject only those scientific facts and procedures that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible?
Can you give as a few examples of scientific facts and procedures that you have mentioned in your posts that you reject but DOES fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible le -you are purposely rejecting selected parts science -Proper Knob had hit it on the nail.

Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible! You have reduced your debate to bringing
up my faith or avoid dealing with the issues of your dating methods head
on. As I have pointed out over and over, I don't know how old the earth
or the universe are, they could very well be billions of years old; however,
that neither adds to or takes away from my complaints on dating methods.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible! You have reduced your debate to bringing
up my faith or avoid dealing with the issues of your dating methods head
on. As I have pointed out over and over, I don't know how old the earth
or the universe are, they could very well be billions of years old; however,
that neither adds to or takes away from my complaints on dating methods.
Kelly

….Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible!
...…

Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate.

….I don't know how old the earth
or the universe are, they could very well be billions of years old
…

But you should know -science has already told us -it is billions of years old. So what’s the problem?

…. however, that neither adds to or takes away from my complaints on dating methods. …

-“complaints” which have all been debunked -and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible!
...…

Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate.

….I do 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong.

"Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate."

[/b]This is sad, it really is! I've not brought up scripture all my complaints are
about the reality of what it is your suggesting is true, and you still attempt
to turn this into my motivation about my complaints! Stick to the topic at
hand avoid making me the topic and we will get somewhere! I don't go
after your motivation, I've simply given you reasons why I disagree with the
dating methods of tree rings, I gave you my complaints you disagreed I
gave you links to the very university that helped turn tree rings into a
dating method in the eyes of many that support my points of view on the
topic and you instead of dealing with those, attack my motivation for
disagreeing with tree rings! I can promise you, there isn't a single verse
in either the OT or NT that speak to tree rings so your suggesting my views
on the matter is Bible based is baseless.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible!
...…

Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate.

….I do 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong.

"But you should know -science has already told us -it is billions of years old. So what’s the problem?"

[/b]Like I have said, it very well could be, it isn't really part of my complaint
the methods we are discussing are.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Show me one place in any of the issues I have brought up that I site the
Bible or anything in the Bible!
...…

Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate.

….I do 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong.

"-“complaints” which have all been debunked -and, also, your inability to answer questions 1 and 2 debunks your central claim that all the dating methods could creditably be all wrong."

[/b]You have not debunked my complaints instead you went after my
motivation for disagreeing, the only one with a creditably issue here is you.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So why do you SELECTIVELY reject only those scientific facts and procedures that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible?
Can you give as a few examples of scientific facts and procedures that you have mentioned in your posts that you reject but DOES fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible ...[text shortened]... le -you are purposely rejecting selected parts science -Proper Knob had hit it on the nail.

Why do I selectively reject...I don't I look at the whole and where there are
weaknesses I point them out. If you have to swallow the whole thing no
matter what I think you have drank the Kool-Aid and no longer can think
critically. When the university of Arizona says that tree rings are not based
upon time, to me that should tell you something!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Correct it cannot be trusted because it does not do what people think
..…

And what does it not do what people think it does? -lets see:

….it is not an ACCURATE representation of time to begin with
...… (my emphasis)

Exactly how not “ACCURATE” must it be to be “not ACCURATE” ?
The fact that the fact remains that it is in ...[text shortened]... good agreement with each other AND yet make ALL the dating methods give the WRONG dates!!! ?[/i][/b]

2. You see what you want to see in my opinion! It does not matter that
tree rings are not a measure of time, you still wish to use it!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…“Ring-Growth Anomalies
Question: If one tree ring is grown each year ("annual rings", why not just count the rings?

Answer: Ring growth is not ALWAYS annual:
.… (my emphasis)

-right, but it is USUALLY else how can the dating from tree rings be generally in good agreement with all the other DIFFERENT dating methods? -the fact it IS ...[text shortened]...

“Occasionally” is the operative word here for the reason why I just explained above.[/b]

"-right, but it is USUALLY "

It is based upon the stresses that the trees encounter as the examples
that were given showed you! Since tree all enounter many of the same
stresses they will have some agreement, but that again does not mean
that time is causing it! You think it usually agrees is a statement of faith
on your part.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"[b]Don’t need to; I just merely need to point out that you obviously selectively reject only those scientific facts that doesn't fit your particular interpretation of what's taught in the Bible -why? -end of debate."

[/b]This is sad, it really is! I've not brought up scripture all my complaints are
about the reality of what it is your suggesting is ...[text shortened]... tree rings so your suggesting my views
on the matter is Bible based is baseless.
Kelly[/b]

…I don't go after your motivation..…

And what is my 'motivation' of accepting ALL scientific facts as facts?

Originally posted by KellyJay
2. You see what you want to see in my opinion! It does not matter that
tree rings are not a measure of time, you still wish to use it!
Kelly

Why do you put the number “2” in your post here? Are you implying that this answers question 2? - it clearly doesn’t.