They're talking about the mineral content of the water. I'm talking about the water itself. Water isn't distributed evenly underground. Even an inch or two can make a huge difference.
Do you not think that samples would be taken throughout the area in question, and measured? Do you think that if your comment above was a serious problem, that this dating method would be used at all? It is also one tool at a scientist's disposal, not the sole test that a scientist would rely on, as it gives relative dates rather than absolute. Biostratigraphy (i.e. comparing with other fossils, often index fossils, all of which are found in faunal succession) is a preferred method, as is the radiometric dating of surrounding rock.
I still don't understand what your point is about the "water itself" as opposed to the mineral content, which is the important factor here. Excuse my grievous ignorance and enlighten me please.
I do not assume evolutionism is truth. I think there's quite a bit of evidence close at hand which supports this statement.
Yet strangely all you are still doing is saying "I don't believe," without referring to the evidence presented (the article on foraminifera evolution). Like those decaying atoms, the foraminifera are not sitting up waiting for your approval either.
Polonium radiohalos (not a new subject, I've seen it discussed in other places) . . . how much do
you understand about them? I understand very little, and I will be honest about that because this sort of detailed knowledge of chemistry and radioactive decay is difficult for me to grasp and I have no background knowledge of it to help me. Please address your question about this to RAZD, when you are finished discussing the other points about radioactive decay.
