We agree the sea was lower exposing land bridges connecting most all land masses. The glacier ice contained the water which melted and covered the land bridges. No argument with that.
Once again I ask, how is anyone certain of the timing of 60y or 150k years. They are speculations not based in science.
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumption, never agree and return different assumed dates based even of the exact same sample. For one thing as an example it assumed, using C14 to nitrogen measurements, the C14 was 100% pure at one time and it is assumed the rate of decay is constant, which it isn’t. C14 half-life dating can not be measured beyond 50,000 years.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata , has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Source: Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.
That is yet again another fabrication on your part.
Tree ring dating is scientific.
Carbon 14 dating is scientific.
Tree rings are one of the most accurate ways of dating that exist.
No, it’s based on observation and math that has been proven to be accurate.
It has not been proven accurate scientifically. It is all speculation based on the biases of the scientists’ worldview. Forensic evidence can not prove anything with certainty. Evolution and long ages is a religious belief, not science.
Yet another fabrication.
Through observation we know how trees grow and that the rings reflect their annual growth cycles.
Ion ratios can be observed.
Decay can be observed.
All of that information is then used with math to show scientifically what the dates are.
2 Likes
Again you are ignoring the scientific evidence for the fallacies of those methods used to justify long ages the tree rings and radiometric dating are inaccurate and need assumptions to fit the model. There is no way, using observational science, to back up any claim of long ages.
There is no scientific evidence to discredit either method.
You can compare samples of known age for their C12 and C14 ratios to other samples of known ages to determine an accurate decay rate.
You can examine both living and dead trees to prove that growth rings show age accurately.
You can then combine the two to get accurate dating.
2 Likes
Comparing radiometric dating methods to so-called known ages is circular reasoning. How were the known ages determined? Hummmm?
Some trees will produce numerous rings annually disproving the one or two ring per year hypothesis.
Our core disagreement is about history. Science cannot determine history, despite the secular scientists’ confident claims about what they never witnessed, let alone measured.
Easily with hard dates. If you have wood from a temple, library, or church that was built 2-4,000 years ago and recorded you have a hard date to work with.
Each tree species has a predictable growth ring pattern so again, another fabrication.
Don’t insult farm animals like that.
1 Like
Basically , you want MORE affirmative Action , blacks must go to the front of the line , blacks are more important than those who are not of color . Why are people like YOU upset when whites want to display pride that they are white , is being proud of your color reserved for blacks ? Why does that seem ok with you ? It was the democrats that fought FOR slavery , and started the KKK , so why are the conservatives the bad guy these day ? Did your family own slaves ?
Why do we assume we are the same?
We are not.
Human races have different qualities, different intelligence levels, and different attitudes toward life.
(Again and again, humans did not arise in Africa, which is a 20th century propaganda)
Species vs Race. All modern Humans are Homo Spiens.
Human races are more correctly classified as “subspecies” but it is politically very incorrect.
Nonetheless, the Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
(They are all dead and nobody gives a hoot anyway)