Only that you will continue to miss the point and slander Creationists at every turn.
Then, unsurprisingly, you learned nothing. Did you even bother to read it?
Support your slur that I have "slandered" any cerationist in my post, if you think you can. Note: Slander is *false* attacks. Identify where any of my bashing of the creationists you yourself provided was false or unsupportable. You, son, are slandering *me*. Support your slur or retract it, like an honorable person would do.
Your complete failure to address the *many* points I made in my post -- and then respond with this childish ad hominem outburst without a shred of support -- is, in a word, lame. It is however typical. The only thing I can't understand is why you have no shame.
Let's get specific, shall we?
1. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that your creationist link foolishly pooh-pooh'ed the statement that "Austin is not an expert in this field" based on the inarguable observation that Austin incorrectly gathered his Hawaii samples?
2. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that your creationist link dishonestly and/or incompetently failed to inform its readers that the lab specifically stated that its procedures could not accurately date samples as young as Austin's?
3. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "Notice that Stassen simply makes assertions without any backing. For example he uses the term ‘false isochron’ without saying why it is false.", since the term "false isochron" was in reference to what CREATIONIST AUSTIN HIMSELF HAD WRITTEN.
4. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided.", since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
5. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] mentions the issue as being ‘fairly well understood’ and ‘easy to avoid’ without explaining what the understanding is and how specifically it could be avoided.", since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
6. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "He [Stassen] talks about ‘proper sample selection’ without explaining what was wrong with Austin’s sampling method and why.", since since Stassen MOST CERTAINLY *DID* explain those points in detail (and I quoted where he had done so).
7. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that Austin was incompetent and/or dishonest in his Hawaii paper, because as he himself makes clear, he used samples from more than one source for his Hawaii paper, WHEN THIS IS KNOWN TO PRODUCE NOT THE AGE OF EITHER SAMPLE, BUT THE AGE OF THEIR (OLDER) COMMON SOURCE, and yet Austin dishonestly/incompetently used the "old" age that resulted (and would be *expected* to result) in order to *falsely* try to malign radiometric dating (by incomptently/dishonestly implying that his samples should have produced the younger ages of his samples).
8. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Sarfati was being dishonest and/or incompetent when he wrote "But Stassen cannot not set out any specifics of why Austin’s methods or results are wrong, because they are not wrong.", since Stassen *did* "set out specifics" -- a very many of them, in fact -- as to why Austin's claims about his results ARE DEAD WRONG.
9. Why did you fail to even attempt to address my challenge to you to behave honorably (for a change): "Feel free to point out even a *single* 'unsupportable and vague claim' that Stassen made -- or retract your false accusation."
10. Exactly how is it "slander" for me to point out (and why did you fail to even attempt to address) the fact that creationist Mortenson made a number of weak swipes at Morton's essay about Murray, which don't stand up to scrutiny, and which you falsely characterized as "AIG takes Glenn Morton another frequent Talk Origins writer to task for sloppy sloppy work", since even if Morenson's whines *had* held water, the most it would indicate is that Mortenson and Morton hold differing opinions about the strength of Murray's work, *not* that Morton had done any "sloppy sloppy work" as you falsely charge.
Try actually engaging someone's points for once instead of just childishly namecalling.
Support your slander against me, or retract it. Or are you as dishonorable as the creationist authors you worship?
[Thunderous applause!]