Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?

I can understand the propriety of civility; however when one's opponent makes such a remark as (for instance) "the foundation of life is life", how is one to respond except with some much-deserved disdain?Honestly if creationists want a higher degree of discourse with evolutionists maybe they should get better arguments than "I know I'm right because god sayz so." Can there be any response beyond a little measured disdain in a scientific forum?The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them.At any rate, it's not just the evolutionists who are rude. I for one find it really rude of people to assume that just because I don't believe in god or its commandments that I advocate a position of total moral anarchy, have no purpose in life, and deny the dignity of human beings. That's quite a lot to assume from one statement, in my view, and an erroneous one - I've never met such an atheist and I suspect they don't really exist.Sorry, getting off-topic. I agree that us evo's can get a little terse, but I maintain it's just with the people who deserve it.

I challenge you to quote where I said anything of the sort. I never advocated being rude to dumb people. I advocated being rude to rude people.

How, exactly? How do you get from "rude to the rude" to "rude to the dumb?" That's what I don't understand. "Rude to the rude" doesn't justify "rude to the dumb." So then why do you think my logic applies to the exact situation that I said it didn't apply to?