False. This has been explained to you before.
and levels of contamination and leaching.
Wrong. This has been explained to you before.
The kind of radiometric dating that was most common was Argon dating, but Creationist experiments, proved false the assumption that all Argon boils out of lava.
Wrong. What they "proved" was that if you're a dishonest creationist who fails to clean his sample properly so that he'll get a bogus "result" he can use to try to dishonestly ridicule Argon dating as "inaccurate", then you'll expose yourself as a charlatan.
Thus much of the dating that has occurred is assumptions built upon assumptions built upon assumptions built upon a technique now known as flawed.
Horse crap. Why are you repeating this lie, when the facts have been pointed out to you previously? Do you do it out of dishonesty, or incompetence? Please answer that question.
Also please answer the question that has been posed to countless of you "dating methods doubters" repeatedly, never with a satisfactory answer (and usually with no answer at all): If these dating methods are allegedly so unreliable and/or based on so many faulty "assumption", then WHY DO MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT DATING METHODS -- BASED ON INDEPENDENT PROCEDURES AND "ASSUMPTIONS" -- ALL GIVE ANSWERS THAT MATCH EACH OTHER? That's a mighty big "coincidence" for what you claim are wildly inaccurate methods, wouldn't you say?
Is the clue phone ringing yet?
Speed of Light. We haven't figured out how light can travel the distances, it would have to travel to reach us, unless the universe is very old.
Because it couldn't, but that's no problem, because it is that old.
But the fact that we can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the timeframe specified in the Bible.
You have a very vivid imagination.
Read some of the physics threads and you will quickly discover that our theories of how the Universe came to be are in shambles.
The fact that the theories seem confusing to you is not the same thing as the theories being in confusion.
We just don't know.
Actually, "we" know a great deal, even if you don't.
Even the best theories today, rely on things like space inflating at faster than the speed of light
...which is a well established fact, and contrary to your mistaken implication, it violates no physical laws whatsoever.
and abundant dark energy.
So?
DannyTN, I've repeatedly asked you to stop repeating nonsense from creationist sites as if it even remotely approached a reliable source on scientific issues, and instead go *learn* some actual science (from actual scientific sources -- creationist tracts don't count). Why have you repeatedly ignored my advice? We really do have better things to do than correct all of the misconceptions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods that you post.
Ichneumon always writes as though he's disproved something in the past. He hasn't.
Radiometric dating is based on assumptions and he knows it. But here he is denying it.
Bad argon dating has been proven at over 16 volcanic sites, by multiple scientists including scientists who were evolutionists. The scientific community has shifted away from K-Ar dating because of the inherent problems, but that has been a recent shift and who knows how many bad assumptions were made based on the bad technique.
Different kinds of radiometric dating do not always agree with each other and often give discordant dates. Discordant dates don't always get published, so nobody knows how often they occur. But they have been published enough that we know it's not uncommon.
And the rest of Ichneumon's post is his standard evo rhetoric of calling Creationist's morons, and why I rarely respond to his posts.