Again, water is wet, which doesn't support evolution. But your original claim before your goalpost moving was that there are some facts which support the creationist position. You can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.

Now that you've moved the goalpost to a fact that just doesn't refute the creationists' arguments, here's one: water is wet.

No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again.

What facts support the creationist position?

... this is why others caused an uproar when "original data" went missing from EAU and CRU right around the time of "climategate". ... there was simply no way to evaluate the quality of CRU's work. access to the RAW DATA was NOT available. Only data that has already been "massaged" (to an unknown degree) was available before the "official" release, and that release was prompted by complaints about this very (and very valid) issue. ... access to original data is vital to verifying and reproducing results. ... CRU could have avoided the FOIA requests if they'd simply handled things in a professional, reasonable manner, as opposed to one that was blatantly arrogant and dismissive. They needlessly pissed a lot of people off. When you do that, you should not expect them to not piss you off in return. ... I'm not trying to say data was actually "missing", but it is true that some of it was not available. And CRU's documented attitude regarding requests about it contributed to an atmosphere of distrust. ...

Jane Q. Public, please use your feminine voice to tell Lonny Eachus that when he finds himself deep in a hole, he should use his masculine strength to... stop digging.

Again: "Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."

Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned.

access to the RAW DATA was NOT available

Previously, you could have used your ignorance as an excuse. Now you're just lying. And apparently neither you or Lonny Eachus have enough intellectual integrity to retract your latest steaming pile of civilization-paralyzing misinformation. This flood of misinformation isn't just staining "Jane Q. Public's" sock puppet legacy. It's also staining Lonny Eachus's real human legacy. Please stop.

it was uncovered that most of the original data could (later) be obtained from the original sources

I didn't notice this comment before I wrote mine, otherwise I'd have been forced to correct this incorrect claim too. Again, the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." Most of the data was already in the public domain, which is why the FOIA blizzard against CRU was so hysterically pointless.

Years ago, I explained in excruciating detail that this played absolutely no role in evaluating the quality of CRU's work because the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." The Muir Russell review reproduced the necessary code in two days without any help from CRU.

And, of course, this isn't CRU's fault because “the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.” Oddly, many people seem to ignore this point and blame CRU.

By the way, I debunked the misinformation that you and Lonny Eachus were spreading about Cowtan and Way 2013. Feel free to retract your misinformation (or double down on it) here. Lonny Eachus is welcome to do the same, but for some reason he never replied.

That's why it was "impossible" for CRU to have withheld access to the raw data. Because they didn't collect it in the first place. Anyone who was actually interested in the data could always have gotten them from the same sources that CRU did.

"Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so." [Muir Russell Review, p48,53]

And in most cases, they could tie the DNA sample to your name using your car registration number.

The cosmic microwave background radiation is slightly closer to an ideal blackbody spectrum than that of an incandescent bulb, but people can't see it. So physicists don't nitpick continuous spectra like you keep doing, because nobody should be surprised that incandescent bulbs are made of atoms.

Pardon me for nitpicking a bit, but incandescents are not "continuous spectrum". Generally speaking, they are more continuous than fluorescents and LEDs, but continuous they are not.

MIT society of physics students: "one can observe a continuous spectrum by looking at an incandescent light bulb."

Did you know that cold fjord liked Doom before you read his/her post? I believe we have all been informed.