Any comment W_Fortenberry?

quote:

---

I wanted to respond to Post #66 but will have to spend some time compiling some information.
Please allow me to itemize and test my references since I have only recently joined this forum.
Your argument is exhaustive but interesting and certainly does compel the Bible believer to question his/her foundations. This may take some time but I will assume that given your zeal for trying to prove the Bible wrong, that you are at least in search for answers. You may end up being pleasantly surprised or I may end up frustrated.
If you want to email me in the interim, it is rmcronal@bm.ibm.com

---

Zeal for proving the Bible wrong? I call it a dogged pursuit of the truth. Having a conclusion before research is done is exactly what science (including archaeology) avoids. Pre-existing belief taints scientific inquiry and tends to render its results less trustworthy. But I don't see evidence thereof when I read the post in question.

quote:

---

With all due respect to your scholarship, dating methods have not changed in their basic assumptions. Radio-metric dating still has to stand on the presupposition that decay has been constant over the years and has not been affected by external forces. Selectively choosing samples of rock to draw conclusions on dates that are in excess of millions of years is woefully optimistic. I think you are looking at methods used for younger ages though. Carbon dating is an awsome methodology, but is fundamentaly flawed. that has not changed. We still have to depend on methods that track the age of artifacts over periods of time that exceed our current lifetimes. the science continues to try to perfect these methods but at each turn, something new comes to light to show that previous dates were wrong. I do not stand by any of these methods and therefore render myself obsolete in this debate.

​

**********************************************

​

Often is not every time and an accepted 'window' of error is just another way to shake hands and agree that we are close to what we expect it should be. "Accepted windows of error" have been the dating game's motto from the start.

---

Would you care to join one of the recent threads on radiometric dating? I'm sure you'd find it interesting to learn that many corroborative methods are used with very good results, and that your conspiracy of hand-shaking scientists is a bit fantastical. Do you think that a year of surging flood waters could lay down millions of fine sediment layers with observable cyclicities that match multi-year phenomena like sunspots?
( http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pflood.htm )