What is true is that there have been many attempts to discredit him because the information he exposes presents a very real threat to the evolution religion.
So to remind you of an earlier discussion -- when he revealed that he thinks the sun burns by combustion, and it was pointed out that he was incorrect, this was an "attempt to discredit him"?
The problem here is that we are getting bad research.
Again I must ask if you have read the rest of this thread. CTD wanted dates for a complete section of the geologic column. I posted several for the Williston Basin which included radiometric, paleomagnetic, and zicron U-Pb (also known as diagenetic xenotime, which is a way of dating a sedimentary layer). I think the scientists who published those articles in scientific journals would not be so convinced by your offhand assertion that it is all "bad research." Feel free to pick one of these methods to illustrate how it is invalid.
For more about dating methods being consistent, read:
Consistent Radiometric DatesFor the Fen Complex in Norway, there are 8 consistent dates, produced by different dating methods and samples.
On the subject of the Grand Canyon, there is a long and detailed thread about it
here. You will find information in that thread about uplift and various dating methods.
Thus the dating of rocks by fossils and vice versa involves circular reasoning that the theory of evolution is true.
Fossils are not used in any of the dating processes mentioned or linked to above, nor are they necessary. I'd abandon this old claim if I were you.
further research shows that great liberties, in fact, outright lies are fabricated to attempt to make evolution look credible by falsely supporting the "geologic column" myth.
Yet you have so far not presented any evidence here that the geologic column is a myth, nor have you been able to falsify any of the information I have presented which shows it is a reality.
It is truly amazing that you conclude that I do not know what he is talking about because I don't summarize his points.
As I've said previously, I don't take the time to do this because it is more efficient to allow onlookers of these debates to read this information from referenced, reviewed sources online.
So if I did the same, we'd each just be posting videos all over the place here with no obligation for us to understand them or even watch them. Don't you think God gave us a brain for us to use? I think there's psychological stuff going on here that you either don't realise or are consciously employing in order to avoid having a proper debate, but I'll give you credit for attempting to find some evidence in your previous post.
I have received comments from people thanking me for my work in this forum demonstrating the corruption that exists in the promotion of the evolution myth.
I'm not surprised. When people believe in something strongly and aren't willing to question it, then naturally they will want to cheer on whoever champions their cause, no matter how faulty their logic or meagre their evidence.
Evolution is the foundation of humanism. It is written into the Humanist Manifesto, and this no mistake.
Communism is also decidedly evolution-based.
Bunkum. The change in organisms over time has nothing to do with these things, whatever spin people want to put on it, you or anyone else. I'll let you carry on this discussion with Linear elsewhere because this thread is about the geologic column.
Curiously, evolution and the formation of the geologic column carry on, oblivious to your accusations of evil and nonexistence.
