[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

When they dug down, they based their opinions on erosion rates and said “This is how old they ‘should be” - the ‘should be’ was STILL the criteria for their annalysis and determinations- preconcieved notions based on assumptions- nothign more.

That is simply not true. You have offered no evidence that they had any preconceived idea of how old the rocks "should be." Do you ever draw conclusions from observations in your own life? If you came across a rotting tree stump crawling with bugs, would you formulate some kind of idea of when the tree fell down? Would that mean you had a preconceived idea of when the tree "should have" fallen down? If I insisted to you that the tree had fallen down yesterday, and that your ridiculous theory that the rotting and the bugs indicated an older age was just based on your assumptions, wouldn't you think I was being a little dense at best?

[CottShop]

[[That is simply not true. You have offered no evidence that they had any preconceived idea of how old the rocks “should be.”]]

And you sir have offered nothign to suggest anythign but assumptions was used prior to any type of testing- it ‘looked old’ therefore it must have been old was the mantra, and ‘since we note uniform present stratas, then it ‘must have been the same’ in the past’ mantra is all they had to go on- nothign but asusmptions- sorry-