When a method is determined have faults, then it should be examined. That’s the way science works.
And just what happens when this is applied to the YEC 'clocks'? I mean, if we are going to do science shouldn't we look at the moon dust argument and others? When you are done with that, please tell us what age each of these clocks tell you that the earth is.
And then (trying not to sound like a broken record) please explain the concordance of radiocarbon and tree-ring and varve and ice core data. No one else has ever done this. Maybe you can be the first!
No, but then all that serves to do is prove how uncertain it really is.
Compared to what? Once again, please give us your dates for the age of the earth.
So, you do admit that it happens? Reducing is not eliminating.
Ah, I get it. Either everthing is know to a certainty or it is unknown completely. Why do you not apply this philosophy to your own ideas on the age of the earth?
Actually creationists don’t have a problem with them when it is seen from a creationist’s point of view.
Of course they don't have a problem. They just reject the evidence, as you are doing.
My preconceived concept is that the Bible is true. From the first page to the last. What preconceived concept do you start out with?
You mean that your interpretation of the bible is true.
™ Version 4.2
