Science Disproves Evolution

Ah, but there is a third alternative: ignore and run away. Surely, a tried and true YEC technique.I also like the question regarding exactly what ages do these 'alternative clocks' yield. Sometimes that ends the conversation, but here, I think we are dealing with a 'Gish Gallop' style of argumentation. Pahu will continue to present a moving target while never answering the growing pile of questions that you present.

Heh, heh... Problem is that these measure something other than the age of the earth!Tell us, Pahu, exactly what age do each of these techniques tell you?

Edge's axiom: "At some point in the distant future, YECists will claim to have discovered bilogical evolution."

And? 'When they...', what?C'mon, Jason, you are parroting here aren't you?You really have no clue what they say, do you?Have you ever tried proper punctuation?

Yes, Pahu, refuted. Perhaps someone can contact Tim on this and he can explain in person to you, as he has done here before.We do know two things about the distribution of the continents in the past, though quantification is virtually impossible. This is the reason for Hanseen's simplification: to show that the current rates of recession are not representative of the past. We know that there have been periods where there was essentially one continent and we also know that there are now more, and larger, continents than in the past. The point being that the rate of recession is much different, probably faster than throughout most of geological history.And, AFAIK, the moon is not believed to be of the same age as the earth, so there is no need to match ages.As a consequence the lunar recession clock will not keep good time, even if it did actually measure the age of the earth.

So, exactly how old do your clocks say the earth is?