My words regarding creationists and their qualifications were 'typically' & 'often'...
Why are you now creating the impresion that either I or the talk origins site says that ALL creationists fit that description? Is it neccesary for you to defend your beliefs using crafty argumentative techniques, such as the straw man argument you are attempting to create?
Many of these "normal science magazines" are run by dogmatic evolutionists who reject creation apriori (based on philosophic grounds),
Unless you are able to provide comprehensive documetary evidence to support this slur, this is simply a lie or a deceitful exaggeration. Most scientists believe in evolution because of the evidence.
I can show very easily that the majority of websites/publications by creationists are run by those who fit my description above - can you show your above claim to be equivalently truthful? Go on then...
Oh, re. CRSQ and CENTJ; if a bunch of plumbers (whose work was considered as sub-standard by most other plumbers) set up their own plumbing organsiation, would that mean they were suddenly good plumbers?
The reason why you did not recieve an answer (from me) on the bristlecone pine tree issues has been pointed out to you on other threads.
I don't believe you. If you could refute that evidence, you would. You can't so you make excuses. Yet, as I point out, the unrefuted evidence which shows your YEC beliefs to be wrong is ignored by you, as you carry on pushing YEC beliefs.
Like I say, it's about what you would like to believe, not what the evidence supports.
The material on the link you provided is not evidence. There is an assertion there that '"Dendrochronolgy" is more hoax than science'. I would like to see this backed up, as dendrochronology is actually very well considered, and if it is a hoax, it is a very consistant one. I went round a Gaulish village in France, dating back before the Romans. All the dendrochronological dates simply verified the other dating methods, rather than showing up as vastly different. Yup, I remember, all the OTHER experts are wrong, isn;t that right? Even when they can show they're not!
As I say, it's about what you want to believe. You wouldn't let yourself be operated on by people with the same level of professional respectability and/or education as you accept scientific data from.
Isn't that strange? You'll believe amateur opinions and unfounded speculation, but if you were ill you'd go to someone who had proper qualifications and wasn't considered misguided by 90% of the medical profession?