That's been your constant refrain, but let's not forget all the times I compared your accusations against the posts you were accusing, and found that you were being, to put it kindly, disingenuous.
There was, for one example of many, the time that you declared the following post by Right Wing Professor to be a sample of where you found an evolutionist's post to have "some condesending [sic] remark or ad hominem attack" and was therefore support for what you called your "sad conclusions" that 1) "Those supporting 'science' are the quickest to behave in an unscientific manner", 2) "Those most inclined to hit the abuse button are the abusers", and 3) "The food fights tend to start with the evolutionists":
Right Wing Professor's post #76, was (in its entirety):I said it then, and I'll repeat it now -- if this is your hand-picked example of an "unscientific", "abusive" post, then it seems that you'll consider anything an attack.The "Creation" model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.
This is the key piece of weaselry. Helium and uranium daughters should be produced a similar rates (related by some numerical factor which depends on the number of alpha decays over the whole chain). There is far too much of the uranium daughters to be formed in 6000 years. And by far too much, I mean about 250,000 times too much. That's obviously a big problem, so they propose 'accelerated nuclear decay', a completely ad-hoc hypothesis that contravenes everything we know about nuclear physics. If that decay were confined to, say, 1% of the 6000 years, it would put the natural level of radioactivity at 25 million times the current level. If we take a low average value for background radiaiton exposure at 100 mrem/yr, then the creationists' theory would have it at 2.5 million rems per year during the period of accelerated nuclear decay. 1000 rems over a period of a couple of days is enough to cause early death from acute radiation poisoning. Any living material would be fried.
Moreover, if they have made helium diffusion measurements in zircons, why aren't they published in a real journal? Those, if done correctly, are perfectly valid numbers, interesting to a number of people, and need not be referenced to creationism. That's assuming they did their measurements competently and didn't 'cook' the data. Given what I've written above, I'd give either plenty of credence.
As for your allegation that the "food fights tend to start with the evolutionists", you ironically made this charge on a thread where POST NUMBER ONE which created the thread was a post by a creationist which ended with a taunt at evolutionists (the thread was eventually pulled).