A simple question for a complex issue

There is a whole thread on "What convinced you of evolution?".http://EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What convinced you of Evolution?It probably gives the kind of simple start you're asking for.However, I don't think that any one or even 3 or 5 things is what really does it. Not for many of us as individuals or the biological community as a whole. It is the interconnection of so very many different things that really does it.------------------
Common sense isn't

TruthDetector, you're going to have to have a bit of back up for such strong assertions. You appear to believe these things NOT because of any impossiblity of anything or what can't be explained but rather you think it is impossible to explain things or for things to have happened because you want to believe. You're entitled to your beliefs but don't expect them to be taken seriously because you state them in big letters.

---

Common sense isn't

It depends on what you want to debate. If ID then there are a couple of threads for that:
Intelligent Design

---

Common sense isn't

No, it is a fact that on occasion some species lay down more than one ring. It is not a common thing though. It is also a fact that trees may barely lay down a ring in a year if conditions are bad.This is why multiple species and trees are used and cross matched. You explanation doesn't touch the actual processes in dendrochronology.If you sources are trying to make it this simple they are misleading you.And if you wish to go to the C-14 dating thread and bring up Brown's ideas there. Well, good luck.
http://64.4.8.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=77dd5fbc4c0... ml%23182

---

Common sense isn't

No it does not appear. Do you have back up for this? Since tree ring dating, like some other types has been shown to work. Why do you think this is a problem?whatever, you need to investigate the possibility that you are being lied to by those you think are on your side.

---

Common sense isn't

Whatever, someone is not telling you the truth. I suggest you and truthdetector get together and really try, with a truely open mind, to figure out who it is. The entire scientific establishment or your AIG, ICR etc. sources.Let's try to pick something simple. The dating issue. Why don't you read over a few of the dating threads and add your questions to them.Whatever, it has been pointed out to you that your fussing about argon is missing some very important points.My question to you is: "Do you really want the truth?" If so, start acting like it.

---

Common sense isn't

So? He's making up something to get the answer he wants. There was not flood! You don't prove there was by not only assuming there was but then makeing up more and more extra unsupported conjectures about what it might have done. You need some smattering of evidence.Dendrochronology does not depend on one tree being alive over the entire time period. By matching ring patters the time range is pushed back to something like 11,000 years.Why don't you look up some real information rather than repeating this stuff.
The ultimate Tree-Ring Pages

---

Common sense isn't

You have no backup for any of those assertions. Until you do they are worth about what they cost to store, if that much.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2004]

{qsMicroevolution
A term referring to evolutionary changes beneath the level of the species. It includes, but is not limited to, adaptation to local environments. See also macroevolution."[/qs]So, since it is a bit of a cheat to redefine terms just to make your argument, it seems that the creationists have actually agreed that macroevolution occurs in that AIG says that new species and genera arose since the flood. There are, for someone as uniformed as whatever is, above the species level.

---

Common sense isn't