Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!psuvax1!psuvm!DKAUNI2!UK3W
From: UK3W@DKAUNI2 (Matt Will (MOW))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: radioactive dating
Message-ID: <"90-02-28-13:44:42.18*UK3W"@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
Date: 28 Feb 90 14:06:52 GMT
Sender: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Reply-To: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Lines: 25
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway

David,

let me give you an example of why radioactive dating does not work out:

1) There is a very famous human skull, which has been named "Zinjathro-
   pus". With a certain method, it has been "proven" that this skull is
   1 3/4 million years old. But Dr. R. Whitelaw recently "proved" with
   a radio-carbon-method that this skull is only some 10 000 years old.
   Quite a difference, isn't it?

2) The evolutionists say that the moon is billions of years old, and
   during that period of time, there have been lots of meteors falling
   on the surface of the moon. Therefore, a thick layer of dust should
   be found on the surface of the moon, which, considering the age of
   the moon, could have the thickness of a couple of meters. Therefore,
   when men landed on the moon, the landing equipment was equipped with
   special feet (very expensive). It really was a big waste of money,
   because, as you know, and as the creationists had predicted, there
   was not even an inch of dust on the moon.

Now, the second example does not quite match with what you said.
But I think it speaks for itself.

Comments?
Matt