> Conclusion

>
> This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always
> been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how
> disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

> Conclusion
>
>
> http://www.creationscience.com/
>

> Conclusion
>
> All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages,
> presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but
> not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly
> inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is
> more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter
> time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for
> dating "clocks" that show a young Earth and a young universe.

> Conclusion
>
> All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages,
> presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but
> not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly
> inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is
> more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter
> time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for
> dating "clocks" that show a young Earth and a young universe.
>
> This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always
> been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how
> disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?