Ok, first off many of the papers at icr are peer-reviewed, not all but many. That's why I'm using them as source. Look at bottom they have
references.
2nd you question credibility, well if I'm reading what you writing correctly the credible people are the ones believe evolution, because you already
think evolution is the right path. If this false statement the please tell what you consider as credible people or an authority.
3rd you said they're agenda based.....yea, but that's a double standard in one way or another all of science is agenda base. What's a hypothesis,
it's an educated guess which is trying to be proved. So, when you make observations or experiments your looking to prove the hypothesis. That your
agenda. The oort cloud is good example of that. The indirect observation is that comets don't last billions of years thus the oort cloud, thus an
agenda to prove the oort cloud. Well, I could say the Earth being here is an indirect observation of God. Also suppose by some means I had a way prove
99.99% in creation, would you want it to true? If you answer No then you have a byes, if you answer yes then should be objective and look the evidence
creationist put forth. They have some really hard questions for you to answer if evolution is true. So far we've only talked about dating there is
allot more out there. Everybody in science has the agenda of finding the truth. Creationist think that is truth is God and they want to prove and
defend it. Your doing the same thing your just on the other side of the fence.
Ok, now as far as dating method....that method doesn't work, can't date things that young, you did it wrong,....blah blah blah... So, what main
stream science is saying is no dating method can be used for things younger then 10,000 years or so. The only dating method that work are the ones
that have the dates of billions of years. When creationist date things they assumed wrong, however main stream science have has inconstant they are
still assumed right, because they constantly are improving there methods. Science is constantly changing there Theories per observations that are
made....like the oort cloud...Sounds like a wife, she always right because she can change her mind anytime she wants. You see this all the time,
can't prove it, but using indirect evidence we'll change our theory and assume it's true. So creation methods are wrong, and main stream is right
because when they're wrong they're still right, because they can change there theories using indirect evidence and assumption to appear to be right.
That's not real science that's junk. The only thing wrong with creation dating methods is that they don't fit the time-line main stream science
wants. So in rolls the excesses.
You want a peer-review paper go start looking at 1970's science magazine for the articles on radiometrichalos. I don't think there has been a
peer-reviewed paper disproving his findings, as of yet. I might be wrong, but I haven't found one yet.
I got to get back to work, more later.
[edit on 9-11-2007 by ebe51]
[edit on 9-11-2007 by ebe51]



