Quote:

---

Infact, they are labeled with a time/date and science has already discovered how to make this visible and understand it, but you seem to not want to understand this, hence your 'these are just bones in the ground' comment.

---

Unfortunately, there's 'new', peer-reviewed evidence that the radioisotopic decay rates have been accelerated in the past, and that the earth is about 6000 years old. Wonder why you never see anyone do a new article on this? Bias, perhaps? No...not in the American media....that couldn't happen. Hm.

There has always been evidence of a young earth, but this is the most damaging because it once again shows that uniformitarianism is bull. And furthermore vindicates the viewpoint of people like me that have known the evolutionary timelines were based on huge assumptions. Rats (or should I say rates? )

Quote:

---

When talking about more absolute dates, our dating methods might indeed still be a bit flawed, however relative dating gives enough evidence already, so that's why absolute dating errors are not important for these kind of conclusions.

And still, those error ranges are getting smaller and smaller with every development step the dating methods go through ...

---