The Creationists' Nightmare

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You call these sources?

I gave the first link because it contained tables of a number of dates for one rock set.

That doesn't address my question. A creotard site is not a legitimate source. For anyone with any fucking SENSE, that is.

I'm having an extremely hard time finding an unabridged list of such dates, as I said before.

That doesn't make a creotard site a source.

Usually evolution and creation sites both pick only the "convenient" ones.

TRUE for creotards, absolutely. But for legitimate scientific/geological sites, you are merely projecting your own dishonesty and disingenuousness on those whom you would wish to discredit based on your own agenda.

If you can find an impartial list, please post it!

Not gonna do your homework for you.

In a meta-analysis, it does not matter who wrote it, unless you think them capable of creating false evidence.

Wow, how disingenuous.

The second link simply had a nice picture, and I referred only to the picture.

Don't really care what your justification for using your creotard site is.

Ad hominems are not going to get us anywhere. Find us a journaled meta-analysis--they seem very well hidden.

I am not going to play the "teach the 'controversy'" game, fuck you very much. And you clearly do not know what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy and what does not. Your being a disingenuous fucktard and presenting bullshit creotard sutes as if they were legitimate sources is not going to "get us anywhere".

---

[quote='cato123' pid='300127' dateline='1339826699']
Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon? [quote]
Pray tell me, what are geochronologists' and geologists' opinions when it comes to the Grand Canyon? It's hard to find a secular page that mentions the level strata.

You didn't address the question.