I am pretty sure most people understood what I meant.
Yes, what you meant is that you don't understand the differences between biology and geology or physics, apparently under a delusion that it is all part of a vast conspiracy.
This is what fundamentalists that don't understand science usually mean (altho they often use "darwinist" instead of "evolutionist" the meaning is still clear: they think evolution is an enemy of truth).
What you really
should say is "scientifically validated by multiple sources measurements of age and time frames."
For a discussion of the interactive validation of various methods by the scientific process, I direct you once again to
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Patiently waiting for you to tackle this concept of correlations between the various dating methodologies, while noting that all of your
sturm und drang on this thread is
totally pointless due to your erroneous
prima faci assumptions regarding mailable ages and questionable dates:
It doesn't matter how much you squeal and wiggle around the arguments given to you showing that you are wrong ...
... any argument based on a false assumption is
de facto invalid and not worth consideration.
The earth is old, according to vast mountains of objective, correlated, consilient, congruent evidence -- get used to it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : "