no, shimrod, I don't think in those terms regarding you. I don't fully answer all your challenges, but remember I am one only, defending the biblical creation position against more of you. however if you actually present something that is strong evidence for your origins story, I will probably counter it, or possibly concede that I don't know the answer to it. I did at one time totally ignore your posts when you were foulmouthed but since adopting a more polite [ albeit maybe a little sneering!] tone I don't ignore you.   but now I shall add jack, to steve who I don't bother responding to.

bill-seems we shall go round in circles. is the science method not defined in terms of doing repeatable, testable, observable experiments. I really don't see how that can be any more than partially applicable at best, in respect to origins.
how can you insist that they are the same?
operational science can establish scientific findings because of repeated tests and observations yielding consistent results.
this is just not true of something like dating methods, or more precisely the interpretation of their results.
results are dismissed as wrong if they are at variance with the field work - itself being interpretive dating- and then there are a whole range of standard explanations for why it differs.
they may appeal to xenocrysts contamination, or that somehow else old "age" was inherited.
but when the creationist appeals to other factors, somehow that is inadmissible!
yes I got this info from CMI but the author is a geologist.
and I would have thought that dismissing such info because of the source was a fallacy of some kind!
what counts is coherency, and substance to truth claims.
and I would say again that even were it true that 99.9 of scientists were convinced evolutionist, that would not be proof in and of itself that it is true. the most have often been wrong before.
I was also challenged about decay rates, so I found an article on CMI by john woodmorappe entitled
billion-fold acceleration demonstrated in laboratory.
this cited various sources which I think were non creation.
and I would also say, as you inferred I would, that you have the notion that any lab results that contradict deep time belief must be flawed!