[Son, I know better. The tripe on those links doesn’t fool me; it just makes me shake my head in disgust at how gullible their intended audience really is.]
Pappa, the word ‘tripe’ does NOTHING to coutner facts- that tactic might work on DC but not here
[And I “misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it?” The links you cite all together amount to a few hours of “study” by their respective authors — all with the intent of finding a few scientific sounding terms which will serve to fool those who don’t know any better.]
Loooool- Yup- I’m pretty sure woodmorappe only spent a ‘few hours’ on his book- and by the way, you can find his work all over the internet seeing’s how you think not buying the book will somehow make hte problems of radiometric dating go poof in the night (I think I’m gonna make a song with that title- dedicate it to you)
[You clearly know little of science,]
Ahahaha- yup- you’ve done marvelous refutting the science I’ve presented in the many threads in response to your ad nauseum postings of already refutted facts. You can look down your nose all you like- but the fact is that when the science starts getting too deep- ytou run away (with comments like Hrmphhhh. well... that’s not my field- I don’t have to answer that)
[but are willing to take the word of any creationist website, no matter how ridiculous their arguments are shown to be, because you want to believe them.]
Nope- sorry- the fact is that I take the science they present and see that it is backed up- ignoring the facts isn’t science Coyote- but perhaps someday you’ll come to realize that- perhaps even right after you read Woodmorappe’s book!
[(Are you ever going to support some of the silly comments you have made about radiocarbon dating? Or have you given up?)]
I assume you are referring to the htread awhile ago where I made a mistake and DID already own up to it as you well know- but apparently needed to bring up again so others can be reminded of the mistake- but what I did is far more than you’ve been willing to do by simply running away from coutner evidences to your well refutted postings.
[The link you posted contains little other than an ad trying to sell me a book.]
Yeah- you’re right- no since spending a little money to uncover the truth- better to leave it alone and to continue to make the claim that radiometric dating is very nearly entirely accurate lol
Considering how shoddy Woodmorappe's workmanship is, that's probably the only place you'll find it. I recently tried to go through a series of reference he cites for fossil reworking to confirm they were authentic and was unable to find many of them because dates, volume numbers, and page numbers were incorrect and he only gave cryptic two-letter abbreviations for the names of the journals. Several of the references I was able to turn up did not support his assertions at all. You can read the saga of my epic journey through his reference list here. I would be embarrassed to cite Woodmorappe as an authority considering the state of his reference pages!