[Dimensio]

and what was their constant when testing radiometric dating?

If you had read the link you would not have to ask this question. You are fundamentally dishonest for refusing to accept information given to you and then denying that you have received any information. You are, without question, a shameless liar.

Then again, you're a creationist so I could have safely guessed that much anyway.

[RunningWolf]

Any demented kookball cultist of the cosmo-evo evo-cosmo flying spaghetti monster calling you a liar is about as ubiquitous and insignificant as a eight month old baby crapping its diaper.

Wolf

[whispering out loud]

you knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, bottom feeder, I apologize, I stand corrected you are all the proof I need of evolution, or in this case maybe it's reverse evo. At any rate, you have no case to call me a liar, The very science you stand on is supported by scientific method, in which case to prove anything, there must be a constant, and a variable, and in that case the case can only be proved as far as the constant can be monitored, in this case, there is no way to have a constant that is millions of years old, but that isn't even the case we were discussing. The topic was evo, in which, even reading your article, I find no reason to change my mind. In fact, I am resolve as to my stance, and If you don't like it, then you have a problem. You remind me of a kindergartner who wants to fight, just because someone holds a different view. A theory is just that a theory, and unless the schools are allowed to present other options, then it is not presented as a true theory. I have nothing else to say to you, If you can show no respect then you shall no longer get any. Have a nice life, .. or don't I don't care.