Why can you never construct a coherent argument?
On numerous occasions.
You've never once addressed them.
And "Lalalala!" doesn't count.
I ask you for corroborating methodologies to validate C-14 dating
•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
However none of these hold any bearing on your position because your position is "But what if all physics worked COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when we weren't looking???"
Hence the fact that all scientific dating techniques confirm the Earth and the universe are much older than 6,000 years do not address your argument in any form.
Unfortunately for your argument is not only completely lacking evidence but is not testable. Ergo it is not scientific.
and your only reply is "all of them", follwed by aimless rambling about how me being a "contrarian"
You put forth no coherent argument in the first place, so the simple statement of facts is all that's required until then.
because I don't accept evolution on faith as you do.
You and I are both aware that I do not accept evolution on faith nor need to. You are simply in here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...