Ron, there is nothing to admit. This is a well known story, but your slant
on it isn't the way it happened. My files are spread between two computers
right now so it will be a week or so before I am fully up to responding. I
do want to say that at the time of the first dating of this bed, no
evolutionist 'hid' data. If they had hidden things that disagreed with
their preconceived views, they would not have published such a bad date
(and they knew what the experimental problem was) and if they hadn't
published it, you wouldn't know of it. The fact that you know that there
were problems is entirely due to the honesty of the evolutionist.
In 1973, Richard Leakey found
>'1470 man' skull fragments that indicated he was 220 million years old
>based on the potassium-argon method of radiometric dating. Since decades
>of research by anthropoligists and paleontologists indicated man had only
>been on the earth some 5 million years this had to be an error. Finally,
>strata was located 6 miles from the find that indicated an age of 2.61
>million years. That, then, was considered to be 'the best and most
>acceptable estimate.' If the primary method of determining age which you
>mention apparently doesn't work and apparently it didn't in this find,
>educated guesses, including the circular reasoning process, are fell back
>on.
Ron, what you don't seem to understand about science is that they attempt
to find a coherent, consistent explanation which takes into account all the
data, not just a given date. What you are wanting is for the evolutionist
to take just the date that agrees with your position and ignore the others.
This isn't any more correct than what you criticise the evolutionist for
supposedly doing. In fact it is the same thing.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm