Calibration has nothing to do with what i linked to as what I linked to was a relatively recent discovery. You clearly do not have a clue about what is being discussed - the fact that rates can change due to physical phenomenon that no one was aware of before.
That source you've mentioned? It was
specifically talking about the decay rates of isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36 as being variable depending on the solar influx. Although it mentions the elements commonly used within dating method, the source also states that scientists had yet to test their theory on those elements. Read what you're posting properly, next time.
As I said, anyone can quote anything to support one's claims. That's why one must find truth on their own.
Now you are just showing yourself to be a barefaced liar because I never wrote Carbon dating but radiometric dating.
It's easy to accuse others with lying than to actually prove them to be liars.
The edit date of your post states that it was edited at least several minutes after I've posted. Unless you have a screenshot of the post
without that there, then you've proven me as being in the wrong. Even then, however, you must account for the fact that I can claim that my memory was faulty there, so I wasn't lying
per se.
Not at all. I really do not debate with children. I have found it never goes anywhere they just ignore and run away from the evidence just like you tried to do when shown that your presumptions about Radiometric dating are now being shown to be suspect.
I'm 20 years old. How can I be a child?
Literal interpretation of what you're saying aside, just because you used logical fallacies such as "Ad hominem" doesn't automatically mean that you're right.
And you've also proven my point that YECs try to use logical fallacies in an attempt to make it seem that they've managed to stump their opponents.
Do you see where I placed this discussion? It is under Ethics and Morality. I have submitted that Creationism is a deceitful concoction of scientifically related trash with the intent of misleading Christians. I am not interested in the stuff you are throwing out here. There are plenty of other threads where you can debate those things. Here we are judging Creationism as to its intent. So we could go into the ethics of science which might be a good idea. I am sure I could discredit Creationism there as well. But I am not sure how it would be received here. What do you think?
I can see where you're getting that from - YEC advocates commonly using questionable tactics in an attempt to convince others they're right, whether or not they even know that they're doing it or whether or not they are are even aware they're acting like false prophets when they do so.
Young Earth Creationism, itself, isn't the problem. It's the sheer fact that many of the theory's advocates tend to use questionable tactics that's the problem.
