Actually, I'm pretty well acquainted with the concepts and have debated them here on FR a number of times. The only thing you've really shown is that you can cut, paste and use ad-hominem. You cite arctic ice layers as a sample of known age. Care to explain how that method places the lost squadron hundreds of years prior to WWII? No, you can't. It makes you look bad. Nor can you account for how the sking of a beast could be dated 20k years apart from it's bones. Nor, can you explain how two mammoths laying side by side could be dated 30k years apart. It's called shining people on. I'm aware your information is highly technical. So were the aircraft designs of many a man that was injured and or killed before the wright brothers flew. Your methods don't work any better than theirs.
Actually, it's because I've watched your "debates" on FR that I make the observation that you are "remarkably ignroant of dating methods". I stand by that assessment. The claims you make on this topic are full of enormous amounts of misinformation and misunderstandings. You know very little of even the basics of dating methods. You do, however, seem to have read a great load of garbage about the subject from creationist sources. This is rather like "learning" about conservatives by listening to Air America.
The only thing you've really shown is that you can cut, paste and use ad-hominem.
I've also shown that you can't retract your falsehoods when you're shown clear evidence to the contrary.
You cite arctic ice layers as a sample of known age.
Yes I do, among other independent samples. And you have utterly failed to deal with the fact that age determinations from multiple, independent methods achieve MATCHING RESULTS. How do you explain this, if such dates are as wildly unreliable as you incorrectly claim?
Care to explain how that method places the lost squadron hundreds of years prior to WWII? No, you can't.
Sure I can. The answer is that *IT DOESN'T*. The only idiot who tries to claim that it does is creationist Carl Wieland, but he's being a total moron.
It makes you look bad.
How does it make *me* look bad when you cite a creationist being stupid about dating methods?
Nor can you account for how the sking of a beast could be dated 20k years apart from it's bones.
Sure I can, that's an easy one: THAT ISN'T TRUE EITHER. Creationist Kent Hovind was lying -- he falsely claimed that two different dates measured for TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS were from the same mammoth, when they were NOT.
Nor, can you explain how two mammoths laying side by side could be dated 30k years apart.
Sure I can -- they probably died 30,000 years apart (if your claim isn't just a lie like the last two). If you provide an actual citation to your claim (if you even can), I'll be glad to get into the specifics for you.
It's called shining people on.
Yes it is, so why don't you stop it? Providing false claims by creationists hardly helps your case any -- quite the contrary, in fact.
I'm aware your information is highly technical.
Is that why you can't rebut it? Is that why you're apparently unable to see how it completely invalidates the overstated claims you made earlier?
So were the aircraft designs of many a man that was injured and or killed before the wright brothers flew.
If you think that's some sort of adequate rebuttal, you're quite mistaken. It's on par with the gradeschooler's, "you can't make me!"
Your methods don't work any better than theirs.
Sure they do. And all your handwaving and false claims by creationists won't change that.