reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
it doesn't work as well as you might suggest. let me give you an example:
i was researching radio-metric dating, including carbon-dating, when i stumbled upon a site which explained the entire process. they noted that a dig
site is dated once, and thereafter, everything that comes out of the dated strata in that site, must be consistent with the pre-determined dates of
the strata or the item is thrown out as contamination. i had to read that a few times because i couldn't believe my eyes.
their reasoning for this process was that they couldn't afford to date every artifact or item in a dig. so the entire site is dated once, according
to geological strata, and everything must agree visually with those dates, to be considered concurrent.
this also means that they can and do throw away items found in a strata, based on nothing but visual confirmation, which is itself fueled and filtered
by a theory.
that's not science, that's forcing the site to fit the theory. which is okay, provided the end result agrees with the rest of the data. but it
doesn't. for some 5ooo years of recorded history, the information in no way agreed with what the new theory claims and massages out of the dig
sites. ... with prejudice.
now don't get me wrong, in no way am i saying the world is only 6000 years old. i don't believe that for a second. i believe the planet is very
old and had other civilizations on it in the very distant past (not necessarily human civilizations!) but i also don't believe in macro evolution.
[edit on 29-3-2009 by undo]