>GR>You state that the dating processes might be wrong. Do you want to examine
>the>evidence for the dating processes which you say may be wrong? What
> dating processes do you think are wrong and in what fashion are they wrong?
>
>
>Hey Glenn,
>
>I checked my post and did not say this. Otherwise, I enjoyed your
>response and feel that you agreed with me in several areas. I would just
>like to see interpretation being presented for what it is and less as a
>fact.
I must have read more into your post than you intended. You wrote:
>For example, we all know that the proposed evolutionary sequence for man
>includes conclusions based on both the presence and ABSENCE of fossil
>and other evidence. Logical conclusions are drawn establishing the
>relative time period for that form walking the earth. There is nothing
>wrong with this, provided that one recognizes the assumptions and
>methodologies and correctly presents the conclusions. Truly honest
>scientists will admit that IT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG if the methodology
>and assumptions are wrong. To be honest and admit that is good science.
Part of the other evidence determining "relative time periods" is absolute
chronology in the form of dating techniques. I am sorry for misconstruing
your note.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm