[DaveyB]

Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years. Often they date the fossils by the geologic formations they are found in. But if you talk to geologists, they date the strata of rocks by the fossils they find. Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"?

Exactly my point. Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument. But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong. If radiometric dating gives outrageously bad dates for objects of known age, then how can it be used reliable for objects of unknown age. So the “scientific” community has based their religion on the following reasoning – “you know the age of the fossils by the age of the rocks and the age of the rocks is known by the age of the fossils and if you don’t believe them then the radiometric dating can verify the age of rocks and we know that that’s correct because radiometric dating is usually wrong except when it is verified by the age of the fossils.”

[edsheppa]

Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument.

It isn't part of your "circle." The theory behind and techniques of radiometric dating are independent of fossil finds.

But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong.

You have some evidence that the theory of radioactive decay is wrong?

[rwfromkansas]

Again, I am not an evolutionist, but just how do you expect scientists to date their fossils? They have to do so for the good of science. Carbon dating has been shown to be sometimes wrong, but I have not seen evidence that other types are wrong yet. Maybe they can be, but that is why scientists look at multiple things to determine the age of an object. What would you suggest they do?