[Alter Kaker]

That's why evolutionists date sedimentary layers using radiometric dating methods which are known to give wildly erroneous numbers, due to the fact that the underlying assumptions of the dating method are wrong, then?

1. You're wrong. Radiometric dating doesn't give "wildly erroneous numbers."

2. Even if all radiometric dating were invalid -- again it isn't -- radiometric dating isn't essential for proving either that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that evolution takes place.

Whoever is feeding you your information is doing a notably poor job.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

1. You're wrong. Radiometric dating doesn't give "wildly erroneous numbers."

Nonsense. We can date lava that's been out of the smokehole for 200 years (per historical records) and see radiometric dating methods give us ages for it of tens of millions of years. Evolutionists rely on these methods because they give them the numbers they want.

2. Even if all radiometric dating were invalid -- again it isn't -- radiometric dating isn't essential for proving either that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that evolution takes place.

Concerning the age of the earth, how so? Concerning biological evolution, it's largely irrelevant for directly addressing that question.

Whoever is feeding you your information is doing a notably poor job.

Ah yes, the old "poisoning the well" pseudo-argument that evolutionists like to slip in. I guess I should just respond by noting that evolutionists suffer from group autism, and refuse to allow anything to intrude upon their self-contained fact-space, thus disturbing their cone of silence? Just as good of an "argument" as yours.