Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique

Didn't someone hint that he referenced his own work without making it clear that it was? That isn't really invalid I suppose but it smells to me.

I don't understand why you have asked for this. I don't know if those who have answered are giving you what you want.A strange question to me.It is however, very relevant. This is a hunk of rock that has "been through a lot" as they say. From that one would expect to have to be careful in what you are dating. The whole paper seems to make that rather clear.

I think we need to back up and revisit, more carefully, the martian meteorite paper.AC doesn't see what is wrong with his look at it. We have noted a number of things about it but he seems to have not read them and thought them through.He clearly doesn't think there is need to reconsider his initial position on it. Perhaps we can go back over it more carefully and simply.It is, after all, the only evidence he has supplied for his claims.