1. As good an example as it gets of the ignorant spew coming from creationist sites.
2. There is no contradiction between uniformitarianism and occasional catastrophes. The rule of uniformatarianism is that presently observable process are the key to understanding the past.
3. Please cite the journal reference where items were misdated. While you are at it, explain to me how you know they were misdated. By what standard are you judging?
You said: 1. As good an example as it gets of the ignorant spew coming from creationist sites.
Boil in your own bile, pal. You have no explanation for evidence contradictory to your position -- you never do; evidence I might also add that you and others like you would just as soon ignore.
You said 2. There is no contradiction between uniformitarianism and occasional catastrophes. The rule of uniformatarianism is that presently observable process are the key to understanding the past.
In case you missed it that was your boy Stevie J. Gould debunking Lyellian uniformitarianism in the example. Not an insignificant example I might add, in that the formation in question stretches over three Northwest US States and portions of Canada. I suppose one could classify the catastrophic global flood of Noah's time as a singularly "occasional" event.
Grand Canyon formations scream catastrophism and rapid deposition of the observed strata formations. It's only a matter of time before the USGS comes to their senses on this one too. Sadly, it took them 50 years to set aside uniformitarian biases to finally admit the truth of the Scablands formations.
The "rule" of uniformitarianism as you call it particularly when extrapolating it from geology to other general contexts stretches one's credibility. It is the kind of simplistic thought process one might expect from a lawyer, such as Lyell was, but certainly not for a thinking scientist in command of what should be his unbiased powers of observation.
You said: 3. Please cite the journal reference where items were misdated. While you are at it, explain to me how you know they were misdated. By what standard are you judging?
How do I know they were misdated? Why don't I let you be the standard and just ask you. Were you alive when Mt St Helens blew in 1980? If not, I know I was, as were millions of other Americans. You can ask us. The eruption has been thoroughly documented, and if you still have doubts and it wouldn't challenge whatever powers of research you can summon too terribly much perhaps you can just look it up.
Quoting directly from the link below: "Potassium and argon were measured in the five concentrates by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. These preparations were submitted to Geochron Laboratories with the statement that they came from dacite, and that the lab should expect ‘low argon’. No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (ten years old at the time of the argon analysis)." (Technical Journal, Vol 10, Number 3).
Results of blinded K-Ar tests on samples of 10 year-old crystallized lava ranged from 300,000 to 2.8 million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
Your side seriously needs to question your assumptions, otherwise you'll simply have to be content with continually losing your credibility in these debates since you don't.