my statements in the first part of the thread weren't debunked
I debunked pretty much every statement you made in here, with evidence, definitions and sources.
You haven't provided a SINGLE form of evidence for anything you claimed besides "some dude said I work in science, bro. Trust me bro and trust him bro"
Furthermore, no one in this thread has confirmed a single experiment proving that any of the dating methods are accurate for supposed 300000-year-old samples
You out yourself as ignorant of the work the members of the group you supposedly belong to have done.
You are also incredibly disingenuous, because when I post literally anything that debunks your claims, you outright IGNORE THEM and hyperfocus on a smaller part of my posts.
You also clearly do not know what radiometric dating is, how it is performed or why it works, which is why you continuously talk about "start dates" (whatever the hell that means). It's like bringing up spaghetti sauce in a conversation about film criticism-- not even on topic.
@Akae Beka peep game:
I'm about to post evidence of radiometric dating, and he will ignore it, juelz, or just say "that's not proof" without any evidence or an attempt at a viable debunk.
1) Argon-40/Argon-39 is a radiometric dating method that takes a crushed rock or mineral sample and irradiating it, which produces an isotope of Argon, Argon-39. When you heat this sample with a laser in a spectrometer, the crystals melt, and release gases. The more Argon-40 it releases, the older the sample was. This method is viable over a billion years
2) During the Cretaceous Period (the last non-avian dinosaur era, ~66 million years ago), the Earth was impacted by a meteor that scientific consensus states caused the K-T extinction event that saw the last non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. At the impact crater, crystals in granite were melted. We've used Argon-Argon dating (using the methods I described in 1) to date this material to roughly 66 million years old.
Impacts like these produce what is know as "shocked quartz", or quartz that is structurally different to regular quartz, due to immense pressure. This is extremely important because we can find shocked quartz at many different impact craters from meteors hitting the Earth AND at locations where there has been underground nuclear tests:
From this shocked quartz, we are able to determine the age of the impact, through usage of Argon-Argon dating, the evidence for which can be found here:
^^That is an inarguable, peer-reviewed study performed by Harvard scientists and researchers on the material from a crater, which used Argon-Argon dating.
I could keep going, but I'll leave it at that. He won't even read this, let alone acknowledge it
I even ended the claims that I lie about my credentials
Except you didn't.
You provided an image of a mug that anyone of us on this board can purchase,
where you said it was sent to you for your birthday, showing us the side that said "congratulations" to pretend that's why it said congratulations,
when the reason it says that is due to the ACS's own anniversary.
In other words, you were being deceptive with that image. Here's proof:
Further, you continued to claim that radiometric dating is "not chemistry", but you strangely stated you worked in that field.
The reason this is damning is two-fold:
1) You gave us an image of you having a bachelor's in "Chemical Engineering", meaning by definition, if you worked in any proximity to that field, you're admitting radiometric dating is CHEMISTRY.
2) The ACS is a CHEMISTRY organization, whose members are chemists that use radiometric dating, and they themselves state radiometric dating is chemistry. You claim to be a member of this organization, but somehow "disagree" with them. What you are essentially doing is saying that a banana is not a fruit.
This proves you are not trustworthy, nor do you have any idea what you are talking about. I'm willing to believe you work in some capacity with radioactive isotopes, but from every piece of available evidence and your own words, it's clearly not in any scientific capacity. You are most likely a part of a team whose job it is to handle and dispose of radioactive materials.
You do NOT perform science. You rely on it to save your life.
if you legitimately think that's a reasonable way to argue with someone you might as well be a trump supporter. Thats not debate its just childish antagonism
Excuse me, you are the one who resorted to insults because you cannot handle me in a debate. The furthest I went was calling you out on your lies and the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
This is what you said to me:
you look like a buffoon in the face of what I've said
you sound like you have sass in your voice
my dog makes more sense than you
You're a mod. Do better. Be better.
ruffled your 
. Some top tier Juelzing 
you a wild one.
what makes a spirit "holy"?
remember everything in orthodoxy is symbolic to lend spiritual aid
