You did not remember correctly. Back on page 1, my original statement quoted the 40k number. I never said that dating techniques are only good for less than 6k years. More on age dating later.
TheGreatOne:
I will ask once again. Have you read the other 5 pages of this discussion? From your uninformed posts you have made here, it sure doesn't sound like it.
This is part of what I posted a couple of pages back:
"My main goal of my posts here is to show that evolution is not science, and that it has not been proven as fact."
Ok, here we go again. Just based on the half-life of carbon 14, carbon dating is only accurate for less than 40,000 years. However, throw in all the assumptions that have to be made on top of the half-life calculations, and carbon dating's accuracy (as with all other dating techniques) goes down even further!
But, just say that the earth is 40,000 years old. According to evolutionist, that STILL isn't long enough for evolution to have happened. Fourty thousand years is a LOONNNGGG way away from 200 million years. Fourty thousand years isn't even long enough for the earth to have cooled and the little one celled thing-a-ma-bobbers to have "evolved"!
As for the footprint arguement, I posted the exact evidence and reference on a previous post. But now I will go even further! Photos here:
