Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

So basically you're calling the scientists who actually study the relevant facts "illogical" and "irrational" because they don't agree with you.And I read the thread you linked to and it certainly doesn't seem like a victory for the creationists - their arguments were at best inconclusive while the coccolith evidence is very strong evidence agaisnt YEC flood geology.

Well Buz, your statement speaks for itself.You find it hard to keep on topic - if people press YOU to stay on topic rather than producing articles which offer no real support for your case.Let me put it simply:If radiometric dating methods were typically so unreliable that the error margin was +/- 50% YEC would still be proven wrong. Even ancient Earth/Young life views would be proven wrong by the existence of fossils which can be dated indirectly with the help of radiometric dating.But the concordance between the different radiometric dating methods shows that they are a good deal more reliable than that when properly used.So perhaps you would like to produce something which actually shows that the errors are as bad as you say and that explains the contrary evidence.And please don't accuse people of being irrational or illogical just because they prefer to follow the evidence rather than your personal beliefs.

Buz, you did state:
"Geologists and physicists mentally locked into the illogical TOE tend to downplay simple logic and common sense in much of what they have become able to swallow, ideologically"It was in post 54 and you have provided no evidence that there is any truth in it at all. It's just a personal attack aimed at discrediting the evidence against you - pure ad hominem.And there is no C14 problem. The facts are well known and your source has no excuse for writing on the subject without being aware of them - or worse ignoring them.The first fact is that the rate of production is variable and depends on cosmic rays hitting the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists take this into account and are investigating it using material where the age can be independantly confirmed. Dendrochronology goes back around 10,000 years and other methods - such as lake varves go back tens of thousands of years more. And yes, they prove that life ahs been around for more than 10,000 years.The second fact is that the Industrial Revolution affected neither the rate of production nor that of decay. By burning fossil fuel humans have released old carbon (therefore not contining significant amounts of C14) into the atmosphere, affecting the ratio of C14 to C12. This effect means that dates over the last few hundred years can be ambiguous. It has no relevance to the really old material at all (indeed we only get "wrong" ages for material from the 20th Century or later - and the latter half of that is also affected by increased C14 production caused by the testing of nuclear weapons).And this is why creationist sources are often not taken seriously. They are frequently wrong.Try this site for some real information : radiocarbon WEB-info

Melvin Cook is - or was - a creationist, although not quite the usual sort of fundamentalist - he was a Mormon. And of course he wrote to support Mormon scriptures (which includes the Bible - more or less).

I think that Buz is doing a good job of showing us the creationist mentality.His starting point is that his beleifs - or a significant subset of them - are infallibly true. And that includes the arguments used to support those beleifs - even if they are complete fabrications. Everything else has to be forced to fit (and judging from the behaviour of other creationists that includes the Bible).Anything that can't be forced to fit is ignored - after all it can't be important if it contradicts "the truth".And they can't even see that they are closed minded dogmatists who put themselves - according to their own beliefs - above God.

Well to go over your points1) Scientists do have a good theoretical understanding of the issues and there is no plausible effect that could produce the results we see if the Earth were in fact young. Moreover a young Earth is inconsistent with other geological assumptions to the point where it was rejected.
By any rational standard this appeal to unknown effects which just somehow produced what we see is groundless speculation produced solely as an excuse to reject the clear evidence.2) The Bible's record is in fact not very good at all. In fact your point here is implicitly circular because it results FROM your belief in the Bible.3) This is an obvious falsehood.4) Is more groundless speculation on the grounds on 1If that is all you have to offer can we expect you to concede that you could be wrong and that the evidence is strongly against you ? Or will you keep on ignoring the facts as you have done in this thread or run away as you did over your claim of "frozen tropical animals" ?