Dude, I've been here all of a week, so I don't know who you're talking about when you say "you folds" or "this time".
'You folks' refers to evolutionists. 'This time' refers to... Hmmm... Some concepts are so straightforward they're difficult to put into different terms without resorting to more complex language. I'm reluctant to increase the complexity of the terms I employ in the present situation.
Regardless of the time you've "been here" I have been operating under the assumption you were'nt born last week. You present yourself as having some familiarity with the issues of carbon "dating"; I did not assume this to be an act.
If you truly don't know about the RATE project, here a linkhttp://www.icr.org/rate/
Some of the findings have been discussed in this threadhttp://www.evolution...pic=283&hl=rate
There's another relevant thread conveniently pinned, which discusses carbon "dating"http://www.evolution...topic=1143&st=0
And finally, I'll save you some time & give you a link you'll likehttp://www.answersin.../rate_index.htm
It's difficult to discuss something that hasn't actually been put forth, what mechanism/prediction mismatch are you talking about?
Do you not know the mechanism which allegedly produces the Earth's magnetic field? Your education in these matters is spotty indeed, and astonishingly lopsided. Reading has the potential to remedy this. I recommend the practice.
We can build tree ring chronologies out to at least 9,000 years ago with no gaps using ring patterns so I'm not at all sure how your "gaps" figure in.
Ah, and this you have
looked into? Perhaps you might find or start an appropriate thread in that case?
I don't find your source all that impressivehttp://sonic.net/bri...one/dendro.html
Principles of Dendrochronology
A principle basic to any study of the past is the principle of "uniformity in the order of nature", first proposed by James Hutton in 1785. It is commonly stated as:
The present is the key to the past.
I can think of a lot more important considerations for anyone attempting to study tree rings - and not just a few, either. This site focuses too heavily on propagandizing when they should be presenting facts. Indeed, they don't even list any other principles at all in that section, preferring to provide a link instead. I guess those who really want to find out the principles will just have to take the link, huh? Meanwhile, all who pass will be subjected to indoctrination. What nice priorities!
Sadly, your evaluation has no effect on reality.
Of course not. I'm a creationist. It is the dreams of evolutionists which are alleged to have the power to alter reality.
As I have stated before, my belief does not alter reality.
The assigned role of my beliefs differs from that of the evolutionist. My beliefs are charged with reflecting and conforming themselves to reality.
No one who studies tree rings is talking about worldwide uniform tree ring growth.
Ah, so simply denying the assumption removes it from the chain of logic? Doesn't work that way. What's required is to reach a given conclusion without employing the assumption; and that they cannot do.
It is noteworthy how ashamed evolutionism is of its own assumptions. Real scientists don't shy away from disclosing the methods by which they reach a given conclusion. Real science isn't a cloak & dagger business of smuggling things in that don't belong. Those tactics are reserved for the deceptive.