Peanut Gallery - What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw)

I thought I'd pick up on the first part of Buz's latest reply: Just to explain why it is wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...logy#Relative_and_absolute_dating

quote:

---

A large advance in geology in the advent of the 20th century was the ability to give precise absolute dates to geologic events through radioactive isotopes and other methods. The advent of radiometric dating changed the understanding of geologic time. Before, geologists could only use fossils to date sections of rock relative to one another. With isotopic dates, absolute dating became possible, and these absolute dates could be applied fossil sequences in which there was datable material, converting the old relative ages into new absolute ages.

---

(Welcome to the 20th Century, Buz!)It does sound like it used to be a bit circular (although I doubt it was ever completely circular) but the introduction of methods for absolute dating has moved geological dating completely away from any accusations of circular reasoning.Hopefully Buzsaw will see this and adjust his understanding. *crosses fingers*

Which is fine - but it means that the 'circular reasoning' argument needs to be withdrawn.If Buz agrees that geologists use radiometric dating, then - regardless of the accuracy of radiometric dating - they are not using "fossils to date rocks and rock to date fossils".

So...which is more mobile?
1) A cat
2) A barnacleWhich would die in a flood?
1) A cat
2) A barnacle

I notice that Buz is busy claiming that geology is wrong as part of his proof that ToE is wrong.He obviously doesn't care that for geology to be wrong many other sciences would also have to be wrong ( e.g. chemistry, particle physics, biology, archaeology, etc.)But since he thinks that rabies is caused by demons in the blood, I have no idea why he even bothers to talk about science.I wonder what he thinks makes his PC work. Perhaps electric fairies and silicon golems?