| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus:
1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed
2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating
3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years.
4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years)
Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have.
Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.
~Fogus |