Evolution is incorrect

Descartes, "My methods for dating are flawed? No I don't think that. Do you understand how this type of dating works? Apparently not, since things that decay, do so FOREVER." Well, maybe your right. Maybe I don't understand all about isochron dating, but after reading up on people who do, I do understand some. I undestand that isochron dating is a method of radiometric dating, and i understand that radiometric dating is flawed. The wikipedia artical that you quoted stated that the age of the supposed universe is based in part on the results of radiometricly dating meteorite materials and lunar samples. Read this artical, and it might give you something to think about. (http://www.creationism.org...) This says that radiometric dating was used to date the lava rock in the lava dome of mount saint helens, which at the time wasonly 20 years old, to be anywhere between 0.35 and 2.8 million years old. Thats a bit off. "Next, you say that Carbon dating can not be used to dertermine the age of the Earth and you are absolutly correct about this! However, I never said to use Carbon dating, I said to use Isocron dating! The 2 are not the same! When you mentioned carbon dating, you made a serious mistake." You never said to use carbon dating, true, but you did say that they were similar, thus inviting my argument. Plus, in the quote below, you say that they are guided by the same science. I don't believe I made a mistake at all. "This implies you agree with me that carbon dating can be accuratly used to predict ages much smaller then 5 million years. Since you accept the science behind carbon dating and the very same science guides isocron dating then you MUST accept isocron dating as valid science." Your exactly right, I do agree with the science behind carbon dating, and it is similar to that of isochron dating. I never said that I didn't agree with the science behind isochron dating, i said that the science used was flawed. The technique used in isochron dating is a reputabe way of dating, but as the artical above shows plainly, it can be used incorretly. Evolutionists tend to use it incorrecly. "Also, as you said, carbon dating can accuratly predict fossils and such 50,000 years old. But then you claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old?!?! That doesn't make a whole lot of sence!" Sure it does, i'm simply trying to keep an open mind to your arguments, a courtesy that you don't seem to be affording me. I believe firmly that the earth is at least not much older than 6000 years, but one must always keep the "if-in-fact" aspect to their aruments. I am simply saying that if in fact the earth is billions of years old, then carbon dating is not a dating method that should be used in trying to prove this date. "As for your strata argument I am not a geologist and therefore I don't really know enought to scientifically counter it. All I can say is that you yourself admit to only 'the possibility of a world-wide flood.'" Of course I said 'the possibility of a world-wide flood.', I am again simply trying to keep an open mind. Once again, I firmly believe that there was a world-wide flood, but I understand that you don't necessarily. I also gave evidance for a flood, so it was not just a shot in the dark. "Even if there was a world wide flood it has absolutly nothing to do with the age of the Earth." It has EVERYTHING to do with proving the age of the earth! This, as I said in my previous post, would explain how all of the strata in the world were layed down in a matter of months! I understand that not all of the layers are even and perfectly placed, but so what? The Bible give accounts of the water gushing up from the earth like a giant spring, and this would not leave everything level and uniform. Second, how can you expect all of the layers to be uniform and even if the earths surface isn't even?! This all filled in, (and I could go on) it would refute entirely one of evolutionists most powerful argument on the age of the earth. "As you yourself stated, geolgists (not evolutionists.....) have a valid scientific reson for starta that fits perfectly with the established age of the Earth." You will have to cleaify, because I dont remember stating this... "Just becase you can imagine a different theory doesn't make it correct." I never said this is correct, however I strongly believe it is. I have also give a lot of evidance to support my beliefes, so once again, its not just a shot in the dark. Also, I am not forcing this on you, and you are not required to believe it is correct. "Look, your whole argument pretty much comes down to what the Bible and the Quran say about the age of the Earth. Who ever even said that these books were meant to be taken literaly?" Not really, although that is part of it. The Bible and Quran simply support my argument for a world-wide flood, and the Bible at least supports my argument for a young earth. If you ask muslims, the Quran is to be taken literally. If you ask christians, the Bible is to taken literally. Once again, it comes down to having an open mind. "Anyway, if you want to belive the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine. You are also entiled to belive that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the world is flat. These were all once the accepted beliefs of the church. Now, they are not even accepted by most religious people. Infact, Pope John Paul said that evolution is possible and that it does not contradict Catholic teachings!" Your right, I am entitled to what I believe, as are you.