01 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseNo I haven't seen any and neither has anybody else, because they do not exist. It is no different from all those other missing links that are still missing.
Well, have you seen the rings? If you haven't you have not credibility to say one way or the other. You obviously don't WANT to see those rings so you can keep on saying it's all speculation. You are so deep in denial you can't reason your way out of a paper bag any more.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, now that you've seen tree rings, so you know they exist, ask yourself how they're formed. Specifically, ask yourself how they're affected by temperature differences. Then, take a younger tree and an older tree, and see if their rings match (overlap) to some degree. Now, ask yourself if this overlapping is likely to be the result of both trees living partially during the same time, under the same conditions, or if it's just random chance that they should overlap.
That's about 60 rings. Show me how you get to 6,000 or 10,000 from there?
If you choose to go with random chance, ask yourself why it is that this random chance always gives the same result on all the trees we know the age of beforehand, why random chance never produces tree rings that overlap but don't give correct age on trees we know the age of.
Have fun.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessDon't worry, he'll rationalize it all away like everything else since he HAS self lobotomized his brain from the ultra deep programming of his religion.
Well, now that you've seen tree rings, so you know they exist, ask yourself how they're formed. Specifically, ask yourself how they're affected by temperature differences. Then, take a younger tree and an older tree, and see if their rings match (overlap) to some degree. Now, ask yourself if this overlapping is likely to be the result of both trees living par ...[text shortened]... ces tree rings that overlap but don't give correct age on trees we know the age of.
Have fun.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessI am not saying that is not likely to be the case in localized areas where weather is known for the growing of those trees.
Well, now that you've seen tree rings, so you know they exist, ask yourself how they're formed. Specifically, ask yourself how they're affected by temperature differences. Then, take a younger tree and an older tree, and see if their rings match (overlap) to some degree. Now, ask yourself if this overlapping is likely to be the result of both trees living par ...[text shortened]... ces tree rings that overlap but don't give correct age on trees we know the age of.
Have fun.
But what I am saying is nobody knows when all the trees began growing back to 6,000 or 10,000 years and to just matchup a bunch of tree rings of trees that may have come from different parts of the world with changing weather patterns over the centuries for various localities, so it is known they came one after the other is impossible.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsObviously, they tend to use trees from the same general area.
I am not saying that is not likely to be the case in localized areas where weather is known for the growing of those trees.
But what I am saying is nobody knows when all the trees began growing back to 6,000 or 10,000 years and to just matchup a bunch of tree rings of trees that may have come from different parts of the world with changing weather pattern ...[text shortened]... he centuries for various localities, so it is known they came one after the other is impossible.
Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessOnly speculation again.
Obviously, they tend to use trees from the same general area.
Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd you should stop talking out your ass as if you were an expert. You have ZERO credibility here, you are a laughing stock. We can and do change our minds based on new evidence, you have no such ability. Your brain is stuck in the year 1000. All you have left is to troll and troll again.
You should just accept the fact that there is no legitimate scientific method known to date anything past about 6,000 years.
You must have written that book "For whom the bell Trolls".
03 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are the one that is talking out your ass, since it is located closer to your brain.
And you should stop talking out your ass as if you were an expert. You have ZERO credibility here, you are a laughing stock. We can and do change our minds based on new evidence, you have no such ability. Your brain is stuck in the year 1000. All you have left is to troll and troll again.
You must have written that book "For whom the bell Trolls".