Unlike the "sciency" methods used by Temple of Darwin fanatics, Creation Scientists prefer to rely on the actual methods of science.
Oh, and btw, your Asp dating method is shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking HERE.
As for your second link, why are you linking to an abstract in which the authors are trying to determine the validity of the very ionium method you are puting forward to establish the age of the sediment cores in question! Perhaps the abstract was too sciency for you...LOL!!!!
So how can Creation Science be falsified again?
“...Creation Scientists prefer to rely on the actual methods of science...”
Please enlighten us by posting two, with a synopsis of why they are superior to the corresponding methods that the evo-athiests use.
I know, all sciency stuff is debunked by guys like your favorite sciency writer.
Whole fields of science wiped away by administration types.
...and Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large man eating dinosaurs....
Your über-scientific conclusion of my second link shows your ignorance. Maybe you should stick with administration stuff and leave the science to those that don’t have the belief that Man walked the Earth with man eating dinosaurs “because they think a book told them so”