quote:
Why does your dating methods and results, fit so wonderfully together'? There could be some forces at work that make it appear so. You don't know what. It is one of those things that you can put on a shelf, and, see if it stands the test of time.
So you are telling me that the hydroplate theory can't deal with this one graph? All you can tell me is there MIGHT be something else, therefore I am wrong? Hmm, looks like hand waving time.
quote:
You know, for a long time mainstream science has assumed old age, and looked for it. No other explanation will do.
They assumed that the earth was young but the data didn't fit the assumption. They were forced to assume an old age by the data, not the other way around.
quote:
Sometimes where their error lies, is in dates that are way too old.
Show me the dates that are way too old on that graph, and why.
quote:
what caused the erosion? (water?) What else besides their "dating" makes it old?
Answered your own question there. Water and tidal forces are causes of erosion. The longer the islands are exposed to the elements the more eroded they are. This backs up the radiometric dating, which you claim are not reliable for no apparent reason.
quote:
In strata layers they call things layed down in the same event millions of years old. Of course Prof Tweedly Dee agrees with Prof Tweedly Dum, and they use stata and fossils to agree with themselves.
Fossils and strata are dated just as the island chain was. The Hawaiian Islands are evidence of the reliability of radiometric data since they are corroborated by plate tectonics and erosion, which are independent of dating. Corroboration from two independent sources adds to the reliability of a test.
quote:
I wonder if you'll get any heavy hitters to straighten you out, when the moderators here are admittedly pro evolution, and seem to me (right or wrong) to be bullies.
Bring them on. I haven't seen anything yet that would approach a "straightening out." As to being bullies, at least I don't come on here and call mainstream scientists dishonest and liars even after they have spent years studying their profession and submitted their work to peer reviewed journals. Bullies push their point of view in the face of counter-evidence and hold their supposed "crushing evidence to evolution" close to their chest.
quote:
Reminds me of "Groundhog Day" Where this guy named Ned says "am I right or am I right or am I right"? Then goes on to try and sell his policy (evolution in this case).
At least I am not doing it in the face of counter-evidence.