I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Cinjin]

So why does your source say "early"? Also note that, according to beardedguy, other methods should also have been reset by such events, yet we see differences in ages between the methods.

I don't know why the source says early; does that change the fact that this specific dating method measures what it measures, and not the original age of the rock?

Am I responsible for what beardedguy says, now? Not to badmouth him or anything, but I can hardly be held in contention for the words of another. Find out for yourself which is right; for all the shit you throw at the science here, you sure as hell seem unwilling to expend much effort in reading up on this yourself.

You started haggling yourself with the mention of 500 million years. Now you're pissed because that didn't help you.

I mentioned 500 million years as a demonstration of the timescales involved here, nothing more. And I wouldn't have to have even done that, if you'd been arguing the science from the beginning, instead of doing what you always do, which is picking at irrelevant wordings to forestall being proven wrong.

John has no other option. It's difficult enough to defend fairy tales written by uneducated tent dwellers let alone without the hassle of pulling one's own head out of a deity's ass to study real science.