Welcome to the fray Oleg
some help on posting quotes:
type
[qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
you can also type
[quote]quote lines are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quote lines are easy
I like to use the first for quoting people I am responding to and the second for quoting text from outside sources.
You know, i may not be an expert in this field, and having read through some of the material, it is overwhelming at first. But, I must admit, one thing that is largely showing out of all of this: the assumption that certian rocks are "older" or "younger" than other of the rocks.
Actually it is based on observations made even before radiometric dating. You can visually see where volcanic rock flows around and picks up and transports existing rock in its path. These inclusions then get bedded in the new flows, but they are easy to see as being different.
You can see this happening in any active volcanic flow, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the old rocks picked up with the new lava are of a different age.
And, let us face this, if an entire establishment has a personal or professional of interest in saying that the earth's rocks are so many of millions of years old
False. They have a professional interest in being as correct as possible. The fact that the rock ARE old - and CONSISTENTLY dated old - is not a problem for the scientists that follow where the data goes, only for people that want to believe a fantasy.
You accuse "YEC's" (?) of being careless,
"YEC" means young earth creationist. A person committed to the concept that the earth is less that 12,000 years tops.
of intentional falsifying of their works.
Not careless or intentionally falsifying, but intentionally misrepresenting the results and the reality behind the results.
This has been demonstrated.
I will say for my part that I'd rather err on the side of being cautious regarding -any- interpretation of past events
Scientists are the most cautious of people. People who rush into the news are usually the fanatics - Pat Robertson comes to mind - responding to new evidence before evaluating it critically.
If you think there is a problem with dating then please review
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and see if you can derive some mechanism that can make all those different annual systems wrong in just the right way.
Denial of the evidence of an old earth is not faith.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle, some added comments
Edited by RAZD, : oypt
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2