If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?
How many times must i post the evidence ?
Look i showed where they took objects such as trees that they positively knew the age of and got conflicting ages from several different parts of the same tree. None were even close to the actual age of the tree.
There was the rock that they tested ten different pieces of the same rock once again conflicting ages of the same rock.
Is it a coincedence that many years evolutionist were makling the argument for many millions of years without the modern day dating methods ? THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE SO CALLED ERRORLESS METHODS OF DATING THINGS SAYING SEE IT WORKS AND ARE VERY ACCURATE. They were guessing when they first said millions of years and they are still doing so.
The reason evolutionist are so against creationist is because their opinions of the evidence differs a great deal and they point out the flaws on the other side. Many well known evolutionist have spoken out against the many theories of the theory that have been created by other evolutionist and when they do they're quickly reminded they are only hurting their future employment opportunities.
The reason why your evidence isn't accepted is that you only post the times when there were problems. Most of the time the methods are dead on and when they're not, it's because of some assay, sampling or contamination problem, NOT because there's anything wrong with evolutionary theory. People don't get fired for questioning aspects of the theory, that's expected in science. They get fired for sloppy science and thinking, like your posts and the people you cite. If there's anyone with a preconcieved notion of how things should be, it's the creationists, NOT the evolutionists, as the discussion concerning the smooth-transition vs punctuated-equilibrium models proves.