UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
Then you need to keep reading.
I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design. I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.
...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.
As do I. And if you were talking about dating one object I might agree that the evidence is not conclusive. Even 10 objects has some margin of error.
But when you are talking about dating hundreds, or thousands or even tens of thousands of objects, which has been done, the argument becomes shit.
Your assumption is flawed. If you are using a flawed methodology, then the sheer number of times said methodology is used has no bearing on its validity.