I post solid science and you come back with discredited creationist nonsense. The lurkers will be able to judge which is more accurate.
Want to go another round?
discreditted? Yeah-0 sure it is coyote- you keep believing the assumptions in science are 'sound science' - Care to address the tree ring duplications in abundant years, and the aneamic rings in bad years for the 'tree ring calibration' techiniques? Care to show how science jumped in a tiem machine and went back in time to calibrate their 'curve' which they convenienty add a 'wiggle' to whenever evidences don't support their curve dogma? Care to venture a difinitive statement as to the accuracy of ice core samples being untarnished? Please do- I've a few secular scientists I'd like you to become familiar with if you want to explore that terroritory.