Walt Brown's super-tectonics

No. Unlike psychics and prophets, you don't have to take a scientists word for anything.If you doubt the dating procedures that returned a certain date, you can examine the dater's methodology and techniques, scrutinize for errors, judge the soundness of their conclusions. It's called "peer review."Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to actually find out how radiometric dating works and how it is done, which apparently you can't be bothered to do. But it's possible. On the other hand, no amount of schooling can get God to dictate the next book of the Bible to you.I'll take the results of a scientist over the results of a prophet any day, because at least in the scientist's case I can determine if he's lying.

That's not how evidence works in court. Scientific techniques are only rejected if they return bad data even if you did them the right way. Every technique returns bad data if you do it the wrong way.You'll have to show some evidence of radiometric dating returning bad results even after the technique was used correctly to discredit dating in general. The fact that some people do it wrong (sometimes on purpose) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not radiometric dating is a valid test.

Well, again, scientists aren't an Elect. Anyone can play. If you have better ideas that explain the data, fire away. Just be prepared to defend them.

No, you need to go back and give the other guys - the ones who didn't screw it up - a first chance. Why is it their fault if some other boob, totally unrelated to what they're doing, can't read instructions?You seem to be overlooking the fact that radiometric dating is a popular technique - it's actually several techniques based on the same physics, by the way - used by many, independantly operating groups. The fact that one or two of them can't follow instructions is hardly evidence that the instructions themselves are bogus.Your criticism of radiometric dating is utterly nonsensical. Dating is a technique. It gives weird dates when you do it wrong. It gives very accurate dates when you do it right. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that. No, but the stuff we're dating was. And the farther we look in space the further back in time we're looking, so we can even see what it was like a billion years ago - we just can't see what it was like here. Because it doesn't agree with the Bible, we know. Unfortunately that's not a valid reason to reject a scientific claim.