<snip>
>>>I'm talking about using the same technique on a same object and getting very different reading.
>>>
>>>Again what if the few million year difference is from the same object? Lets say you measure the age of an wooly mammoth by taking a sample from it's hair from it's head and it reads 150,000 years. Then you do the same except this time from its tail, and the reading comes back saying it's actually 250,000 year old.
>>
>>I dont know of such descrepencies where its almost 100% difference from the same object. But hey Dean, if someone wants to believe in evolution and can see the logic of that process, then great. If someone wants to believe that some unknowable power did it all in 7 days by some magical divine process and then set up all these possibilities to test one's faith, then thats also fine. Whatever makes people happy dude :)
>
>Right on.
>I'm just trying to present another view. I not trying to advocate one over the other because I surely don't know myself.

OK, fine. But nit-picking one measuring technique as a potential source of relatively minor inaccuracy does not present another view per se. It just argues that there exists some measure of error in the exact measurement of extremey old objects.

When measuring the age of things in hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years, then a margin of error here or there does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.

The margin of error does not counter the theory which explains, for all intents and purposes, the observable record. If one argues that the observable record itself is a test put here by God to test our faith, but it is in fact fake, then the discussion comes to a quick end. You can't prove a negative so we are back at "people believe what they want to believe".

But whatever makes people happy is great. As long as we all go out and buy VFP9, VFP10,...VFPn then I'm ok with it :)