polonium halos

Johnfolton, don't you ever get tired of going out to those creationist websites and searching out information supporting a young earth only to have it totally eviscerated on this forum?Doesn't it ever occur to you that your sources are lying to you? And that you don't have the background to tell where and how? And that you don't know a good argument from a bad one when you post them here proudly? Only to see them eviscerated?It would be far more effective if you studied the subject in some depth, and not just on the creationist websites. You would then have some idea of the validity of those things you post.You may believe they are true because they agree with your a priori beliefs, but that doesn't make them true or correct.No answer really required. Your posts speak for themselves. Consider this a rhetorical post.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No. From the posts of yours that I have read I have developed a very poor opinion as to the accuracy or meaninfulness of anything you say.But this is off-topic, and I won't be responding to any more such statements from you.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your arguments might be more convincing if you were citing peer reviewed science journals instead of creationist websites.This is the Science Forum after all, and the record of the creationist websites when it comes to real science is dismal.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.