I diasgree that I engase in such tactics,- anyone can check my post history on the these debates to decide for themselves.
LOL, yeah, that would prove it! On top of the proof of the 'historical record' please provide the URL to where you have thus far show Dendrochronology or the commonly accepted chronologies for the Egyptians to be in error. I've asked dozens of times. Don't count you thinking the article by Don Batten disproved it, you've not ever responded to me showing this was another prime example of bad science on AiG.
If you are unable to provide such a URL (we both know you can't), it would seem you have evaded dealing with this insurmountable problem for Creationists. A good example is the latest attempt; your contempt for the intelligence of fellow posters never ceases to amase me.
For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:
Now, here you are clearly trying to give the impression that you are refering me to a peer reviewed article, in response to my criticisms about peer review process or lack thereof. This is not true.
Any peer review of the CD-ROM proceedings copies of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) failed to comply with the standards normally applied to peer reviewing. You are essentially implying that something written by a Flat Earther and then read by another Flat Earther is peer reviewed.
I find that deceptive.
Also, you typing 'Bristlecone pine' into a serach engine and finding an article doesn't mean the article disproves dendrochronology, as you've shown in the past. Please give me a condensed version of Woodmorappe's argument - I assume you read it before providing it? You did read it hooberus, didn't you?
See what I mean hooberus? Rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts you use what ever wriggling you can to avoid it. But having read Woodmorappe's article, I am sure you will be able to show me how wrong dendrochronology is. I await with pleasure.
Now it gets funny, in that my long-held suspicion you often don't even have the courtesy to read responses to you is confirmed;
For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:
Errr.... hoobey huney, on the same page I detail how ludicrous and insubstancial your reaction was...