Go back and read my posts and your replies very carefully. Where is anyone proposing wildly changing decay rates for the isotopes used in radiometric dating?
1 Like
He does say, “We can also conclude from the near side moon impacts that the largest impactors came from one direction.” It is not clear what his inference is supposed to be here. Is the bombardment supposed to be columnar or inward from all directions, or from all directions inward and outward? Where did the impactors come from?
Pretty much, as googling a few images of both sides demonstrates.
There really is not an evidence based YEC theory of cratering which is coherent, and I think there would be if one were possible. On the other hand, there are no equivalent shortcomings in the conventional scientific explanation. Mars, Earth, the moon, Venus, Mercury; they all fit fine.
2 Likes
Ok, I know what you are asking and I know that if I reply you will not believe me, so how about let’s let @PDPrice 's answer suffice for now:
That would be much stronger objection if the article didn’t cherry pick examples.
2 Likes
Why? The response is always the same, no matter how many examples are given. “Yes, we did that there, but trust us, we don’t normally do things like that”!
I swear if those guys waved their hands and harder avoiding the evidence they would get airborne. 
1 Like
Provide some examples where this was said.
1 Like
lol, @T_aquaticus just “said” it by implication when he claimed I was cherry picking examples. Right here in this thread.
Um, no. Please provide examples. Please show me you just aren’t pulling things out of your rear end again.
2 Likes
You are claiming that there is a systemic falsification of dates, but you can only point to a few examples, and even those examples aren’t problematic. For example, the KBS tuff is a mixture of previous eruptions and new eruptions, and there is nothing wrong with using evidence of erosion to differentiate between the two.
It is the YEC camp who continually cherry picks and avoids the larger bulk of evidence, as shown by your own article. You don’t have a massive review of the bulk of evidence demonstrating what you claim is happening.
2 Likes
Um, yes. One lazy response deserves another.
I don’t think this deserves a human answer. Maybe there are some animals here that would respond?
You just responded… which is rare because every time I ask you about a weird claim or yours you never respond.
Coming from the guy who just says, “here’s a link”.
Actually, let’s look at this statement. I am not saying that you cannot come up with 3 or 4 wildly different dates regarding a “tuff” for instance, or that you cannot eventually “settle” on a firm date. But what we are claiming is that is not science at least, not legitimate science. Why should we let you get by with that?
You make us do all the explaining. Now, you do some. Why do the radio-dates not agree when you take different readings using different elemental decay [of the same site]? Why so diverse? We find your ‘science’ to be frankly, incredible.
edit
They have the power of numbers on their side. They can always bully their way through by saying, “Most scientists agree with our interpretation, so you need to get in line.”
Not just any link. Always a link back to CMI repeating the same science-free nonsense.
Yep. I stopped clicking. I’m
Not helping them moving up the search results.
Why bother discussing it, either? Your mind is obviously made up. You’re not even willing to read something written by the side you disagree with. You’re just wasting your time by sitting here pretending to “discuss” the matter.
We also have all the physical evidence on our side. That’s the physical evidence you run screaming from every time some is presented. Vertical dinosaur tracks anyone? 
2 Likes