http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html

http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/03-01/art1.htm

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/userinfo/dating.html

My understanding came from a book I read called something like "The genetic history of the world"

The above links are not nearly as detailed but may suffice.

The basic assumption in genetic or DNA dating is that mutations occur at a constant rate. That assumption is questionable, but it does seem to agree with other dating methods. The third link above lists all the dating methods.

What the genetic links do say is that mutations happen, contrary to your claim.

All the dating methods put the primates including humans much earlier than a 10,000 year old earth.
Young earth creationists make the mistake of attacking evolution as a theory. What really matters is the facts as established by dating methods, not some theories about how it could have happened.

The facts are facts, and if YEC people want to make any headway they or you will have to falsify all of the dating methods listed in that link. They all point to an old earth except for the tree ring dating types.

Hope to hear more from you. Please address the astronomy age of the universe question. It is the most fundamental criticism of YEC.

Regards,

Richard

• The war of links! :) - kc2gwx - May 22, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
  • No thanks(nt) - yanniru - May 22, 2002 - 20:29 UTC
    • STARLIGHT AND THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE - yanniru - May 22, 2002 - 20:31 UTC