You think highly of yourself there Coyoteman.
Years of study does not come easily. Its hard work. I am proud of my education.
I do not get my information from AiG.
I read hard copy, if you do not know what that is, it is a books or magazines.
I am aware of what "hard copy" is. But I would suggest you read some of the technical journals as well. That is where the science really is. Most books and magazines are syntheses by non-experts, and, especially magazines and newspapers, are of little use in understanding what is really happening in science. Try burrowing through the several floors of libraries where the evolutionary sciences are found. (It may take longer than a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.)
I would like you to know as I have stated before creationist believe in science. That is the real stuff with the ability to test and study. Not the stuff of evolution which is not testable. Also radiometric dating is not an accurate science. It is a field based upon assumption. Those who do the testing assume that a rock found in a layer should be this old because of the fossils found in that layer. The fossils are this old because of the rock layer they were found in. The funny thing is these layers which are still held as fact were decided hundreds of years before radiometric dating. So you see the science you presuppose as correct is only validating what they want is not a true test. Do you have a 4 billion year old rock with a date stamp as proof if not they assume correctness of the test, any thing else is denial.
They assume leaching never takes place in any of your presupposed correct tests.
They assume the daughter element is the product of decay and could not be anything else, mixing leaching, environmental force, decay rate change as time goes on.
Your point here seems to be that "radiometric dating is not an accurate science" because it relies on assumptions. That is not logic, that is apologetics. Assumptions are often extremely well supported (e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow, in the east). It is a typical creationist tactic to point to all assumptions as if they were just wild guesses, with no support at all. That tactic is fueled by religious belief; creationists don't want radiometric dating to be accurate, and many will say, and believe, anything to avoid having to accept that the opposite has been shown to be the case.
Many other religious people have no problem with radiometric dating. Here is a good link: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Your comments greatly expected.
I also have placer mined and hard rock mined and am run an excavator, I see more dirt every day and it does not have the long and slow exhibits you believe. I see large scale catastrophe
I haven't run an excavator, but I have watched that type of equipment for probably 1,000+ hours, and I am pretty good on a backhoe. I have been on excavations in quite a few western states, and have seen a lot of dirt myself.
Large scale catastrophe is fun. I spent some time in the Channeled Scablands of Washington, and have flown over that area examining the formations from the air. But those formations are pretty well understood, and they are evidence against a global flood at the time the Bible experts specify (about 4350 years ago). You see, the Channeled Scablands are way too old, being formed by glacial floods at the end of the last ice age. A global flood about 4350 years ago would have wiped out all evidence of that earlier, smaller, flood. Yet, that evidence is still there.
In summary, you claim to love science, but you sure are willing to believe junk science and creation "science" when real science comes up with answers which don't support your religious belief.