You wrote, "Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy." I told you that your education is your own responsibility. I noted that another poster had given you a link on the subject, and that I didn't expect you to look at it. You fail to recognize that your unawareness in this area, radiodating, is by design, and that you have no interest in changing that. If you had, you would have at least looked at the link and hopefully, returned to the thread with any questions you might have, and to summarize what you learned.
Straw man. Nobody is. I'm a strong believer in empiricism in the lab and in daily life (we can call these formal and informal science, as they attempt to do the same thing - collect data and generate inductions that allow predicting future outcomes), but I actually never even endorsed it in the post you are responding to, much less call it infallible.
Huffy?
You didn't challenge any theory or even any idea. You asked to be taught radiometric dating by RF posters, and I explained not only was your education your responsibility, but that based on experience with apologists asking for information (there's that informal science of daily life), I have concluded that they're never really interested. Perhaps you might have decided to prove me wrong just this one time by reading the link and sharing what you learned. Instead, you got huffy yourself (projection much?) and turned it from a discussion of ideas to what you disapprove of in me.
You haven't challenged the theory of evolution. You requested information that you were never interested in. It's interesting that you see that as a challenge to evolution. I have also long said that these questions about science aren't really requests for information, but declarative statements in the form of a question, like "What's the use?" (rhetorical questions) as part of an implied ignorantiam argument that is basically, "If you can't prove something to me to my satisfaction - and I won't cooperate with you even if you try - then your science is wrong, ergo God." It's further evidence that your request wasn't sincere as I suggested.
You probably didn't like my calling this the apologists' two-step, but then you went and did it, and got huffy when you were called on it. It's an extremely common problem in these discussions. One has to learn to focus on making reasoned arguments and not injecting emotion into the process. It's an acquired skill found in those familiar with courtrooms, boardrooms, congressional hearings, and academic environments. Lose your cool and lose your argument, and be rebuked (if not sanctioned).
When that fighting culture meets the other one, there will be one side getting emotional and threatening to walk out, or begin flinging derogatory personal opinions. Just look at those court TV shows, and compare the demeanor of the judge to the typical angry defendant. It resembles these discussions between skeptics and apologists - one of us posting as I have, and one posting as you have. Those are the two cultures to which I refer.
I have a name for that as well - the three stages of apologist decompensation. It begins with some incoherent or previously refuted "proof of God" or some challenge to science as you offered. This is rebutted, leading to the "You can't prove I'm wrong. That's just your opinion." When this is rebutted, the emotional food fight begins. Sometimes, as in this case, the second step is skipped entirely.
You probably don't like reading that either, but it is an observation that I find maps reality well, and is thus a useful idea. I'm using it now. If you choose to respond, practice rebutting what is actually said to you (you haven't done that yet with me) without injecting emotion. Be Spock.
Incidentally, the theory of evolution is so robustly evidenced that it can be called proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal use of the word. Have you thought about the implications were the theory falsified tomorrow? The existing evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of falsifying find.
What could that interpretation possibly be apart from a deceptive intelligent designer or race of designers existing that went to great pains to make it appear as if evolution had occurred, by planting the geological column, for example, with progressively less modern looking forms at deeper strata with radioisotopes (you can read about these on the Internet, including the link already provided you) carefully placed in the fossil remains in ratios such that deeper forms appear older. Giving man that fused chromosome was a nice touch. Very convincing, but if evolution were falsified, just another deception.
What's interesting to me here is the effort Christian creationists make to overturn evolution, never realizing that even if they are successful and correct about intelligent design, their god is already ruled out by this deception. The Christian god is said to want to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. The intelligent designer can't be that god if it is a trickster god. Nor need it/they be gods at all.
