“You’re just not getting this concept.”
Oh, we GET the concept.
And it’s an interpretation of your favorite superstition source.
Not a compelling detail.
“The earth was formed less than 6,000 years ago and everything on it is younger than that.”
Yeah, there are trees older than that.
And your source says the sky is solid like metal. So this message is bouncing off of satellites that don’t exist.
“If it dates older, there’s something wrong with your method,”
The weird thing then, is that all the methods tend to give consistent results. They’re all wrong in the same way? Every single one?
And you really can’t just say, ’It’s wrong’ without showing where the methodology errs.
“your sample,”
And again, that would require that ALL the samples are wrong in the exact same way that you cannot show. You’re just butthurt that the results don’t dovetail with your favorite fairy tale.
“or your technique.”
Could you please explain the differences between method and technique? I mean, you’re suggesting my technique might be the only thing wrong OR my method is incorrect? I think you’re just throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks.