Again, please fix your quote tags. It's a pain to go through and copy/paste everything because you're double-quoting. All you need is a single set of quote tags around each statement that you want to talk about.
Citation needed.
Radioactive decay produces heat. We know how much heat each step in any given decay chain produces. If all of the radioactive decay that appears to have occurred did so in 6000 years, the heat produced would be enough to melt the planet.
Using a dating method that is known to only produce viable results on samples over a certain age to date modern rocks is dishonest. Either they deliberately chose to use the wrong tool for the job in order to get poor results or they misrepresented their credentials as geologists. Either way, they lied. Plain and simple.
I, and others, have many times. Still waiting for the same from you. If you're too lazy to use the search function, that's not my problem. I'm sick of retyping the same explanations for every new user who comes in spouting the same tired old PRATTs.
Right back atcha.
So was it formed in the flood or created? And if it was created, where did the fossils come from? Why would God place them there?
Have you seen any scientific evidence? Ever? Again, it's not my responsibility to educate you on mainstream scientific thought. It's well-established, widely available, and explained far better than I can in the confines of this forum. If you have specific points that you'd like to debate, I'm happy to do so, but please provide references for your claims and I will do my best to do the same. Please note that "Godddit" is not a scientifically valid claim. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to evaluate it scientifically.
If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up first?
Irrelevant to the point being made. You claimed that the fossils had to be formed in a flood because they need mud. I said there are more ways to get mud than floods. What do transitional fossils have to do with that?
