I actually have that tool you are describing. It is called and increment borer. I am doing a science fair project using tree rings. I am using ponderosa pines. It would be nice if you had put the resources.
Does anyone think it is funny that religious fundimetialists are Experts on all dating methods, flood geology, kinds, the big bang, spontanious generation/abiogenisis and all 6 evolutions....
Please Google the "Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory". They are using dendrochronology on trees, buildings, frames for paintings, and so on. I'm sure they will be eager to hear from you why they are making a fundamental error. I hope that your statistics is not too rusty, they don't rely on eyeballing the rings, so they use instruments and statistical analysis to be sure that they have reliable results.
Nobody has conclusively figured out what actually causes the rings? This guy needs to take a high school botony class. Xylem and phloem are responsible.
@buttface112211 You are a telling us what they are made of. You didn't explain what causes the rings. That's like asking "What caused the candle to be lit?" And you answered, "Duh! It's made of wax! Take a chemistry class!" Hahaha!
@creationliberty Again, take a botony class. Seasons change, therefore the growth rates change as well. You dishonest. You cut and paste this bullshit from Kent Hovind, think for yourself next time.
The 7-year old trees...were they planted as seeds or did he plant them as small saplings? Could they have been growing for 4 years before planting? I mean...the weather patterns surely vary within that seven years as you describe in your video but...why then would every tree planted in different years have exactly 11 rings after 7 years? It seems like the evidence you are offering is really evidence against what you are saying...at least on that particular point.
Get a real education ... and some better living room furniture... And don't reference websites. ... I can't believe I just watched this whole thing. WTF?
(part 3) - just like we don't start out teaching 1st graders calc, we don't explain tree dating to the general public in its fine details... that's why it take years to learn the info and earn a terminal degree in the field. You will not be able to "get" the science of tree dating by reading online or even a book or two, just like i can't point out "flaws" in the bible just by reading online or skimming it a few times. That would be foolish.
(part 2) - there are less-than-genius "scientists" out there who put out crappy research based on unacceptable assumptions. You've probably run across their research. Those at the top of their field don't call them "annual" rings, actually assume that trees have varied growth environments over time, and never assume ring-dating to be more than a reasonably accurate ballpark figure. "1 year = 1 ring" is what we teach little kids to simplify things...
(part 1) - You seem like an intelligent guy, and a lot of what you have to say makes sense based on how you seem to have interpreted the methods of data collection and interpretation that research arborists use. In my experience, those who know what they're doing in the field don't make any of the assumptions you accuse them of (that the tree's conditions and environment have been static for centuries).
Your reverences are very bad you talk about things you heard and things you red and you then say: "You can look this up for yourself". Very amaturistic, if you would just put 30 minuts in getting the sources the video would be so much more pursuasive.
@lnmylife And you assumed that I didn't spend time looking up that material. If you have the references for this stuff, send 'em to me. However, if you will provide the equipment, I'll be happy to go test one of our trees here on our property.
Oh wait... you won't do that will you? :) Because you know that I will find exactly what I just described, and that wouldn't be very helpful to your evolution theory now would it? That's not constructive criticism, that's called "scoffing."
I actually have that tool you are describing. It is called and increment borer. I am doing a science fair project using tree rings. I am using ponderosa pines. It would be nice if you had put the resources.
dogsruleatthis1place 1 month ago
Geology matches Paleontology matches Evolution matches Biology matches the tree rings matches the ice cores matches the evidence >>>>
IT ALL MATCHES. That is how we know it is all correct, it all matches.
And so creationists dismiss it all by saying it is "circular reasoning" and 'assumptions''
What evidence would prove evolution to you?
Nothing?!?
then you are brainwashed, I rest my case.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Does anyone think it is funny that religious fundimetialists are Experts on all dating methods, flood geology, kinds, the big bang, spontanious generation/abiogenisis and all 6 evolutions....
But have never opened a science book.
gregrutz 3 months ago
I wonder how they got to be called annual rings?
gregrutz 3 months ago
Please Google the "Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory". They are using dendrochronology on trees, buildings, frames for paintings, and so on. I'm sure they will be eager to hear from you why they are making a fundamental error. I hope that your statistics is not too rusty, they don't rely on eyeballing the rings, so they use instruments and statistical analysis to be sure that they have reliable results.
shishkabobby 5 months ago
Nobody has conclusively figured out what actually causes the rings? This guy needs to take a high school botony class. Xylem and phloem are responsible.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 You are a telling us what they are made of. You didn't explain what causes the rings. That's like asking "What caused the candle to be lit?" And you answered, "Duh! It's made of wax! Take a chemistry class!" Hahaha!
creationliberty 5 months ago
@creationliberty Again, take a botony class. Seasons change, therefore the growth rates change as well. You dishonest. You cut and paste this bullshit from Kent Hovind, think for yourself next time.
buttface112211 5 months ago
The 7-year old trees...were they planted as seeds or did he plant them as small saplings? Could they have been growing for 4 years before planting? I mean...the weather patterns surely vary within that seven years as you describe in your video but...why then would every tree planted in different years have exactly 11 rings after 7 years? It seems like the evidence you are offering is really evidence against what you are saying...at least on that particular point.
hunkahillbilly 8 months ago
1. Tree rings are small and hard to count but we won't say anything.
2. Annual tree rings are not annual, WTF? They can count the rings on trees of know age and it matches perfectly.
3. One guy we can't find says he can count more rings, really reaching here !
4. Trees growing faster makes thicker tree ring, not more rings.
5. Yes, they overlap identical tree rings from a dead tree to a living tree, no problem.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Get a real education ... and some better living room furniture... And don't reference websites. ... I can't believe I just watched this whole thing. WTF?
johnarnett 9 months ago
(part 3) - just like we don't start out teaching 1st graders calc, we don't explain tree dating to the general public in its fine details... that's why it take years to learn the info and earn a terminal degree in the field. You will not be able to "get" the science of tree dating by reading online or even a book or two, just like i can't point out "flaws" in the bible just by reading online or skimming it a few times. That would be foolish.
bk119957 10 months ago
(part 2) - there are less-than-genius "scientists" out there who put out crappy research based on unacceptable assumptions. You've probably run across their research. Those at the top of their field don't call them "annual" rings, actually assume that trees have varied growth environments over time, and never assume ring-dating to be more than a reasonably accurate ballpark figure. "1 year = 1 ring" is what we teach little kids to simplify things...
bk119957 10 months ago
(part 1) - You seem like an intelligent guy, and a lot of what you have to say makes sense based on how you seem to have interpreted the methods of data collection and interpretation that research arborists use. In my experience, those who know what they're doing in the field don't make any of the assumptions you accuse them of (that the tree's conditions and environment have been static for centuries).
bk119957 10 months ago
Your reverences are very bad you talk about things you heard and things you red and you then say: "You can look this up for yourself". Very amaturistic, if you would just put 30 minuts in getting the sources the video would be so much more pursuasive.
Just some constructive critisism.
lnmylife 1 year ago
@lnmylife And you assumed that I didn't spend time looking up that material. If you have the references for this stuff, send 'em to me. However, if you will provide the equipment, I'll be happy to go test one of our trees here on our property.
Oh wait... you won't do that will you? :) Because you know that I will find exactly what I just described, and that wouldn't be very helpful to your evolution theory now would it? That's not constructive criticism, that's called "scoffing."
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Wat kind of reply is this? I am just saying that it is not really pursuasive to say you can look it up for yourself.
I think you are way to attacking in your replys, why do you even automaticly assume I am disagreeing with you.
Can we have a normall conversation without you namecalling people and acting like a @#%! ?
lnmylife 1 year ago
@lnmylife Which pretty much tells me that I hit the nail on the head. Thank you for that confirmation.
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty What? Could you explain this to me? I can`t see any point that you made so far but maybe it`s just my lack of understanding.
lnmylife 1 year ago