> Notice how various methods all come up with virtually the same age.
Andrew: <<The trouble with such evidence is that we must trust the very small group who collected and interpreted the data. I don't know that data wasn't fudged nor that extreme bias led the researchers to making improper decisions.>>
Of course one can always find a way todeal with data one cannot oppose with logical reasoning by implying some improper behavior on the part of the researchers involved.
Can we say desperate ?
Andrew: <<On Creation Scientist reported finding pollen in Precambrian rock at the Grand Canyon during his Ph.D. program. Any Evolutionist wouldn't hesitate for a moment to dismiss the find, even if the Evolutionist made the find. And, don't even think about wasting time carbon dating a dinosaur bone. We don't want to find what isn't suppose to be.>>
You are surely good at making strawmen arguments. If you do not trust them, why do not perform the research yourself ? Afraid of what you might find ?
Andrew: <<Maybe you could point me to a reference showing the reliability of radiometric dating in such a way that I wouldn't have the worry about the reliability of the researchers. Something like a blind testing of rocks of historically known age.>>
See table 5.5 of the same book more dozens of people tested the moon rocks for instance. Or table 4.1
Researchers:
1. Moorbath, Taylor and Goodwin
2. Pankhurst et all
3. Baadsgaard
4. Pdigeon, Aftalian and Kalsbeek
5.Alexander, Evensen and Murthy
6. Vitrac
7. Black et al
8. Griffin
9. Pettingill and Patchett
10. Jacobsen and Dymek
11. Hamilton
12. Collerson, Lerr and Compsotn
13. Hurst et al
14 Wanless, Bridgwater and Collerson
15 Varton
16 Cameron
Well, you get the idea. No wonder that some are getting so desperate as to consider these people dishonest. Thank you Andrew for giving us a remarkable insight in thought and logic.