Talk:Non-correlating and inconsistent dates (Talk.Origins)
If I've made an embarrassing mistake in this or any other part of my response to that Secular Dating Methods question, I'm open to correction! I took this question on because this is the most exciting finding of creation science thus far: that the various methods used to set the age of the earth and the cosmos are not all that the anti-creationists have cracked them up to be. I have tried to confine my analysis to a showing that secular dating methods do not give the same answers, either from one method to another or even when one applies the same method to several samples from the same place.--Temlakos 22:18, 21 December 2006 (EST)
20 million?
The article says: The usual measure of the age of the universe is simply the largest astronomical distance ever measured, expressed in light-years, divided by the speed of light, expressed as one light-year per year. The result is conventionally accepted to be 20 million years.
Should that be 20 billion? I would have corrected it, but I thought the maximum "observed" age was 15 billion. --Oelphick 03:12, 22 December 2006 (EST)
You're right; that was a definite typo--or actually a bit more than a typo. Good catch, and thanks! I've already corrected the error.--Temlakos 08:21, 22 December 2006 (EST)
