Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages

How would that work, exactly? Like they wouldn't notice their hands "correcting" the calculations in the spreadsheet?

They are capable, and the correlation between different, unrelated methods proves it.That's what you have to response to.

To the contrary; the mathematical tests for correlation are quite unambiguous. They tell you exactly how unlikely the probability of achieving that degree of correlation totally at random would be.What's your statistics background?

No, I did. The mathematical standards of correlative analysis are the objective standard of proof.How wasn't that clear from my post? I couldn't possibly have been clearer.

See, this is why I asked about your statistics background.If I told you the elephant jumped through a Gauge 10 hoop, and you ask how big the hoop was, it's because you're ignorant of circus props. The size is Gauge 10, like I told you. If you don't know how big that is in feet, or whatever, you need to look up how circus props are sized. (It's a made-up example, by the way.)Well, you're ignorant of mathematics. So when I tell you that correlation isn't ambiguous, that the standards are clearly defined, you need to open a math textbook and learn some statistics, not simply assert that I haven't said anything.Look, try thinking a little longer before you post. And try to understand that there are things you don't know, like statistics. Asserting that correlation is arbitrary is just nonsense based on ignorance.

Yes - because you don't know what you're talking about.Thanks for making it obvious, though. Although I'm amazed that you thought you could overturn a century of geology just by saying that it "sucked." Somebody call the USGS!

But you can't explain why. And the decades of reliable dates we've gained by these techniques proves you wrong.I mean, there you are saying the techniques don't date anything, and here we are with a big ol' pile of corroborated dates. And we're supposed to believe you over our lyin' eyes?