Validity of Radiometric Dating

Do you understand how Wiki works?Edited by jar, : change sub-title

It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public. Edited by Faith, : Get rid of all caps and change a couple words

Popular accounts are just that, popular accounts. The reasoning is readily available even in that wiki article if you follow the footnotes.

You can get increasing levels of detail and the reasoning behind it in libraries. The evidence for the topics we have been discussing take up whole floors of major university libraries. Feel free to access that information to the level you desire.So don't moan that the information presented to the public doesn't contain the detail of a Ph.D. dissertation.But I fail to see why you should care--you don't rely on evidence anyway.

That is far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about the detailed arguments, what I care about is how the public is being brainwashed by a presentation of questionable material as fact. There is no way to rationalize this. Presentations of TRUE science don't do this to the public.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And TRUE (or TRVE) science is what creationists say it is?What a joke!I've advised you before, stay far away from science. You simply aren't qualified.

You don't know one thing about what I'm qualified for. The only thing I've ever objected to is the HISTORICAL sciences. Get a clue.

Not so, we know exactly what you are qualified for--by reading hundreds of your posts.You feel you can pick and choose among various fields all of which use the scientific method based on whether or not you like the results.And your posts are a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science mumbo-jumbo, mixed liberally with things you just make up. Collectively, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is.I'd sooner discuss science with a first grader--at least they are capable of learning.

I wish you would go discuss science with a first grader and leave me alone because you don't get anything I'm saying. Again, the only "science" I've ever objected to is HISTORICAL science. You obviously don't know the difference but there is a true science that I do not have any problem with. Go talk to your first grader please.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure Faith I see what you are saying. People are being told the truth! As a creationist it is your duty to use lies and slander to suppress it.Popular accounts are popular accounts. People want them. There is nothing suspicious or evil about providing them.

Yeah, and all your absolutist proclamations are totally different! A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!You repeatedly make all kinds of unfounded proclamations. Show us your reasoning! In its totality! After all, you demand no less of others, so you must be ready to do the same yourself.Or are you forgetting that Pharisee teaching:

quote:

---

Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation.
(Rabbi Hillel, 20BCE)

---

But then, you have already told us how you would treat any source that met those criteria. You would ignore it completely!A little less typical Christian hypocrisy, please!

Well, I looked at WP's actual article on the KT boundary.* It has references to a score of peer-reviewed papers and half-a-dozen academic books.* It describes the reasoning behind the conclusions, for example: * So far from leaving "NO room for uncertainty" the article presents multiple hypotheses, and while it apparently favors Alvarez, it cautiously describes his idea as a hypothesis rather than a theory.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm sure I can find scores of examples of what I'm talking about and it's no less objectionable with the footnotes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet the one example you gave turned out to be made up.

No, as I said it is a typical example. There is no excuse for presenting nonfactual material as if it were fact.