No, there are serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be, but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."
Only among those who make the mistake of try to "learn" about dating methods from creationist propaganda.
but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...
In my long experience with them, yes, indeed, that is the case. You're doing nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.
they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...
Your comment is so laughable that it's clear that you've never actually read anything in primary science journals. No one who actually is familiar with the real science could ever say anything as transparently ridiculous as what you just did. Scientists have more "healthy skepticism" and less "absolution" than most any non-scientist, and creationists have far more "absolution [sic]" and a very UNhealthy kind skepticism.
i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."
We do. Would you like to dispute the actual science, or do you just want to fling more spittle in my general direction because you don't like my well-founded conclusions?
The "serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be" are generally based either on twisted facts or outright non-scientific claims.
As I have mentioned to you before, I do a lot of carbon 14 dating in my work (archaeology) and have studied the method for decades. I have also examined many of the comments made on the method on the creationist websites, and can tell you that they are a mix of misrepresentation, wishful thinking, and outright lies.
Tree-ring dating involves finding a type of tree that is long-lived and has reliable one-ring-per-year rings. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southeastern California fit the bill nicely.
The method involves coring standing dead bristlecone pines and then matching up the various cores (they use computers to eliminate the subjectivity of humans). As a cross-check they look for known climatic events that would show up in the rings: volcanic eruptions are among the best. These have been found to show up in the tree rings when expected. That is a pretty good confirmation that the oveall method works.
The individual rings are then radiocarbon dated. The recent ones (back to about AD 1650) are dated each year, while the older ones (earlier than AD 1650) are dated in ten-year increments. This is used to establish the atmospheric variation (how much the levels of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere varied from the expected values), creating a calibration curve for the radiocarbon method. The calibration curve based on bristlecone pines is now past 12,500 years.
Other methods of cross-checking the accuracy of the method include dating historic items of known ages (Egyptian scrolls or artifacts, for example). The method has been shown to be accurate within its limits.
When you check out the creationist sites they make a lot of hay out of dating coal or dinosaur bones and obtaining dates in the 30,000-50,000 year range. For many labs this is the upper limit of their detection equipment. These dates being cited by creationists are meaningless.
If you want, I can explain some of these points in more detail. Are you willing to learn, or is your mind already made up?