Other than that it shows that atheists tend to be well schooled in sciences, I would say that it proves little. I also noticed that reading newspapers is very popular among atheists. I guess we should therefor be careful about reading newspapers as well ?
Vernon: <<The Christian walk is fraught with many difficulties and temptations - as you should know - and when we find some doctrine (whose fruits are, invariably, seen to be bad) peddled with evangelistic zeal by atheists it would be exceedingly foolish of us to gobble it all up as gospel truth. Wouldn't you agree? >>
Nope. First of all the 'fruits of the doctrine' are not invariably bad and second of the fact that atheists support evolution does not necessarily make evolution 'suspect'. That poor logic would quickly lead to the abandonment of all activities atheist hold. What about math ?
Vernon: <<2) You regard as 'incorrect' my suggestion that the strict rigour of the scientific method has been laid aside to accomodate this particular theory. I believe the facts speak for themselves. Consider, for example, the matter of assessing geological age. Isn't this the way it's done:>>
<<a) Assume evolution is true. >>
First error.
<<b) The Earth must therefore be very old. >>
Second error
<<c) Ignore all evidence which suggests a 'young' Earth. >>
Third error.
<<d) Make appropriate assumptions relating to geochronological dating methods (e.g. uniformitarian conditions throughout life of Earth, initial composition of rocks containing radioactive isotopes, etc). >>
FInally we are getting somewhere. Yes the assumption of constancy of decay is both very well supported in theory as in observation. I told you several times that isochron methods, which are to a large extent self-checking can deal with initial composition of the rock's radioactive isotopes. And the fact that different methods find such concordant dates further supports the assumptions.
<<e) Never publicly confess these assumptions. >>
I guess this is evidence that you have never really looked at books detailing radiometric dating ?
<<f) Reject datings which 'don't fit' as 'aberrations' or 'anomalies'. >>
When so warranted. If 20 of 21 measurements form an isochron and one is an outlier then very likely this one was subjected to a reheating incident.
<<g) Project the impression of overall scientific activity by focussing attention on the laboratory techniques of analysis and the 'men in white coats'. >>
Shame on them, using scientific methods to support their research. Who do they think they are.
<<h) Arrange the fossils in 'proper' order - explaining the many anomalies by invoking notions such as 'overthrusting', 'reworking', etc. >>
Again, when the geology supports overthrusting then indeed nothing is wrong with this.
<<i) Advance the outcome - the 'geologic column' - as prime evidence for evolution.>>
Again an error. The geological collumn had been established decades earlier. Radiometric dating has allowed to put absolute dates to the collumn.
Vernon: << In the trade, this would be referred to as a classical case of circular reasoning and deceit on a grand scale. Where in it do we find the evidence of unbiased inquiry? It is surely a tragic caricature of science!>>
The only caricature I see here is your portrayal of science. Perhaps only overshadowed by your lack of understanding of the science and scientists you attack. It would almost be funny if it were not that sad.
Vernon: <<Can you really wonder that people like myself take all 'evolutionary' claims (e.g. the sudden influx of 'intermediates') with a pinch of salt?>>
Indeed, when one lacks the proper education and willingness to learn what it is all really about then I agree that some people will take the claims with a pinch of salt. It shows that some education is lacking.
But it is not too late:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
Btw I am glad that you at least are willing to acknowledge the existance of these intermediates.
Vernon