Added: 3 years ago
From: mtadaki
Views: 3,569
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (6)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Explain dendrochronology to a Creationist and they still reject the evidence. I had one lunatic claim that tree-ring dating was all wrong and based his entire argument on an article published in ... yes, you guessed it, the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Dawkins was absolutely spot on when he described these peopl as delusional!

  • @Tapiola2007 No, we understand the concept of counting tree rings. It's not rocket science. Strict dendrochronology supports the idea of a young earth. When you start talking about dates this woman quotes, you're getting into hugely subjective assumptions. There is no way to unequivocally date tree rings back to "22 to 60 thousand years." It's subjective bull crap.

  • This one, undisputable fact blows young earth creationism clear out of the water, and then out of the firmament. BAM,

  • Well done! Here in England we have a fossil forest in Dorset with specimens dating back millions of years to the time when the Dinosaurs walked around the land, it just blows your mind to imagine what the world was like as you walk among tree relics that existed long before man emerged.

    From what you say; dendrochronology provides not only a window to look on the past climate, but a barometer for the future, one that we should all be thankful for.

    You have an important work.

  • well presented and quite interesting. I heard that the oldest tree ring specimen ever found was over 12,000 years old.. could this be true??

  • like a texted book.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more