The cure for cults that want to deny others their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech -- Fredric Rice

Another fatal problem creationists have to some how explain-away are tree rings. Under normal climatic condictions a tree ring is formed once annually allowing the age of a tree to be determined merely by either by cutting it down and counting the rings, taking a core sample of the treet and counting the bands, or waiting for the tree to suffer a natual death so that its rings can be counted.

Additionally some trees have very strict growth rates which can be -- and often are -- used to assist in the dating of a tree. Then there's the carbon 14 problem creationist nuts must face which also throws them a fatal problem.

Here we have a propaganda piece titled, "Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology." We start out with the nut making an observation which to any sane individual would be enough to accept on its face, having been observed by their own senses. Creationists, however, aren't free to accept what their own senses and what their own reason tells them about things which the truth contradicts their bizarre occult notions.

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

About two miles high, in the White Mountains of eastern California, grows a unique tree, Pinus aristata (also referred to as Pinus longaeva)....

-=- End quoted text in extract

So much easier just to run right out there and burn those Satanic, lying trees down, right? End of problem. Well, let's see how the ICR cult manages to avod what their own reason tells them:

We get some background into the Bristlecone pine, where they can be located, what previous dating efforts have yielded and what not. The cult talks about specific trees being dated as far back as 4,600 years ago and then, when research continued after a death of a researcher, dates going back some 8,600 to 11,300 years ago.

Okay, we've established that some of these trees are older than the cult thinks the classical Christanic mythologies suggest the Earth has been in existance. (But then so does coral growth, the salt content of the oceans, the geological record, parallax of stars, and, well damn near anything else you can think of.)

So what's the problem? The Earth is _billions_ of years old so why is the ICR cult upset? Well, according to an ignorant savage speaking from the 15'th century, the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.

D'Oh! Those damn lying trees!

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Ussher's Biblical Chronology

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) did serious work in Genesis chapters 5 and 11...

-=- End quoted text in extract

"Serious work." <smirk> Yes, that deserves a Nobel or two, wot? Good frocking grief, what utter stupidity. "Serious work..." as if one could open up a comic book and perform "serious work" with it. How so totally amusing. What kind of a moron... Well, no need to beat that horse, huh?

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

...Ussher placed the date of Noah's flood at 2350 B.C. and creation at 4004 B.C.

-=- End quoted text in extract

Because Ussher was an ignorant savage constrained by the world's general lack of science and the unfortunate belief that some how the classical Christanic mythologies are supposed to be believed.

Here we have trees telling these nuts that they're at least 11,000 years old. We have an ignorant savage saqying otherwise and whos side do creationists join up on? The ignorant savage. And, given the bizarre notion that the ignorant savage knows more about how long trees today have lived than the trees themselves the ICR cult proceeds to once again utter their familiar unevidenced claims:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

The oldest Bristlecone pines now living quite possibly have been growing since right after the flood.

-=- End quoted text in extract

"Possibly?" No. Not at all given the fact that there's no evidence for any "flood."

Why do some people feel the need to discard five hundred years of scientific progress the rest of humanity has made so that they can cling to the ignorant notions of savages five hundred years dead?

Obviously it's because the deity constructs they both believe in have yet to go the way of all the other gods and goddesses which came before the Christian pantheon. Eventually something will come along to replace the Christian gods -- hopefully something that will allow even the more pathetically superstitious among us accept what their very own senses are telling them.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson

"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need to.
Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.