There is a great deal of data that conforms to a high degree with
one's expectations. There is a great deal of data one can easily
duplicate, given the will. Such data, we have confidence is reliable.
A paper on the consistency of several dating methods in a particular
example is not one of those data sets.
You're telling me that I should trust the data of the given paper.
Why?
Given the hostility of Evolutionists do anti-Evolutionary data and
proponents, I would be shocked for any scientist-in-good-standing to
dare publish data that wasn't consistent, not unless he had some
acceptable hypothesis to explain the apparent inconsistency.
Robert Gentry, in his book on Po halos, documents that he has had work
rejected for publication for the specific reason that it wasn't consistent
with established views. Forrest Mims, Dean Kenyon, etc. (even Burdick)
found that there are severe consequences for playing the role of Galileo
(contradicting the established "scientific" views).
> See table 5.5 of the same book more dozens of people tested the
> moon rocks for instance. Or table 4.1
Extremely inconsistent dates have been published for moon rocks,
and I haven't seen any good explanation for how those moon rocks
formed in the first place. That is why I suggest the blind testing
of rocks of known age (e.g. K-Ar with recent volcanic rock).
> 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.
Thank you for what you revealing your attitude toward skeptics.