Replies

You cannot *know* that daughter products were not present because you weren't there to *measure* it.

We can know they weren't there, or to what degree they were there, via isochron analysis. Plus, there are many dating methods which *don't* depend upon the initial concentration of isotopes. Oops! You're too grossly ignorant of this subject to know any of that, right?

It supposedly happened millions of years ago, how can you measure it? You can't.

Actually, we measure it with instruments. Just how ignorant *are* you?

And you can't apply current measures beyond the period over which they were measured (well 'scientists' do, but they shouldn't).

What are you babbling about here? Attempt to remain coherent.

You *assume* and you *norm* and you *throw out* that which does not agree with your *assumptions*.

Wrong again -- why are you spewing gross falsehoods? Oh, right, because you don't know a damned thing about the subject, so you're just parroting the lies the creationist propagandists have told you.

Then you 'conclude' and claim that it is all so 'scientific'.

It is, but you're not. I regret to inform you that you have no clue what in the hell you're talking about. You're like a child attempting to "disprove" quantum mechanics -- it's highly amusing, but also rather pathetic and disturbingly arrogant.

Dishonest from the beginning.

Thanks for labeling your post accurately.

Here, perhaps you'd care to *learn* something about the subject before you start spouting off about it again: Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective . Or like most science-hating anti-evolutionists, perhaps you'll consciously choose to remain grossly ignorant -- no point polluting your lovely propaganda with actual facts, eh?

Hey, Einstein: Let's hear your answer to this puzzle... If dating methods are all horse manure, as you foolishly assert, why do independent dating methods, based on *entirely* different methods and physical processs, give the SAME ANSWERS? Coincidence? Sorry if I made your head explode.

If dating methods are all horse manure, as you foolishly assert, why do independent dating methods, based on *entirely* different methods and physical processs, give the SAME ANSWERS?

I tried making that point earlier; the usual creationist response is to cite a spurious result outside the 3*sigma range (usually from a specific case where the threshold of the particular dating method range was on the fringe or the sample was contaminated) and citing that as a 'typically discarded result'.