Can you respond to the facts above, apart from commenting that you personally think something is unlikely? Dendochronology is an established science and RAZD is telling you about it not because he's expecting to be told off for being "smart" (why should that be a problem anyway?), but because he wants you to engage with the existing evidence. As I've said in previous posts, if creationism is going to hold up as a viable theory, it needs to actually fit the facts. Questioning whether this is so is what science does with any theory in order to test how robust it is. So how about it?