Well Done but !?!?!

by

 

MARTHER FRAZIER: Geologists date rocks that are uncontaminated. There are many ways geologists can determine if there has been contamination and/or resetting of the atomic clocks. See "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Darylmple. The point is that each dating method works under certain circumstances and not for others. One of course would not take a regular watch underwater to tell time in a scuba dive. One needs a specific watch that is water resistant. That of course does not mean that a regular watch is faulty, only that it works under certain circumstances.

DOUBLE SHALOM: Now at least you are debating. I must admit that that was what you have been lacking. You have put up a valid point. The way to counteract it is that it is normal practice by evolutionist to change method of dating if it does not conform to theorized dates. In an event where the rock appears to be younger, they use other methods that put it within theorized dates. But it can be true that the rock is in actual fact younger than determined. It is thus correct to say dating is subjective to theory. There is no way of knowing which products are intrusions and which ones extrusions so much that knowing the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products.




Posted on Feb 15, 2006, 6:15 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Find more forums on Religion and PhilosophyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement