“I have no problem with the science underlying this at all.”
No, you have a problem with all the evil people applying the science without considering Genesis.
How can you, with a straight face claim that scientists would ignore data that is presented to them with actual research and data to back it up?
The only reason I can think of is that your entire argument rests on that assumption.
You think that since the entire work of “creation science” is based on the literal Genesis, that real scientists must be able to discard research and data as easily as “creation science” does.
“creation science” by itself has produced no significant scientific findings thus far to alter the scientific body of knowledge.
Do the words "Hadley CRU" ring a bell?
Cheers!
You know, discussing the issues with you is much more enjoyable than with most evos.
But don’t fall into their trap of deciding what they think for them based on your perception of what you think their world view is.
That’s what ruins it.
And it’s not being very objective.
See, I had such high hopes for you, but here's where you went stupid on us.
First of all, let me ask the obvious question - what do you even know about this whole issue of radiodating in the first place? Chances are, the answer is "not much," because you don't even seem to have understood the objections I presented well enough to present a credible response to them which may, in fact, be why you didn't do so.
How can you, with a straight face claim that scientists would ignore data that is presented to them with actual research and data to back it up?
I can do so with a straight face because everything I said in my previous posts is, in fact, experimentally true. If you disagree, then it is incumbent upon you to disprove what I've said, instead of just reaching deep down into your diaper and flinging the contents at me.
Fact - we know that zircons can form with interstitial Ar in them. Sometimes with quite a bit of it. This is shown both by field studies from actual rocks being formed, and in laboratory studies simulating the conditions in which these rocks are formed. Therefore, there is certainly a good reason to call into question the entire assumptive premise under which evolutionists operate when they arrive at their "long ages" for these rocks. This remains true, regardless of whether you wish to believe it or not.
Fact - we know for a fact that lead can be introduced into U-bearing rocks, and that U can be washed out of these same rocks, both of which will yield artificially old ages for said rocks. Again, calls into question the evolutionist assumptions. And again, this is all true, regardless of whether you want to hide your head in the sand about it or not.
So, instead of whining about me about creationists wanting to reject anything that "doesn't agree with Genesis," how about you start actually addressing the facts on hand? Because right now, you're not looking so hot.
If you like, I can also school your ignorant behind on exactly why evolutionist ideas abiogenesis in an "early earth" are also completely scientifically impossible, based on known science that is available to a sophomore chemistry student. You up for that?