But lets examine one of those many references you provided and see how accurate they are. We'll pick one in a field that I know pretty well.
Radiometric Dating Methods problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
One of the main claims of this article, that purports to rebut the radiocarbon dating method is:
“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]
The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these "ancient" skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?
No, its another example of creation "science" in practice.
Analysis:
This claim is false due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with archaeology, amino acid racemization dating, and radiocarbon dating. And probably science in general.
This claim seems to have originated with Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.
The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate, and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrong–probably out of a wish to show errors in the radiocarbon method. The opposite is true: the Taylor et al. article, by redating these specimens using the AMS method of radiocarbon dating, corrected the earlier, erroneous amino acid racemization age estimates.
But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method — a result the exact opposite of what the research actually showed! It was radiocarbon dating that corrected the earlier errors!
Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts, or are they just doing sloppy research through lack of familiarity with these sciences? Probably the latter, but this practice is so common that one wonders.
Reference
Taylor, R.E., et al., Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1983, pp. 136-140.
-----------------
So much for the accuracy of creation "science" -- and this again demonstrates what I posted above:
Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so.
Keep posting; you prove my points with every post.
Well let’s see coyote- which was ‘right’? The Radiometric dating? Or the AMS? To know that- you NEED to know the exact ages of the fossils being dated- BUT, you ASSUME you know the age because one method with all it’s assumptions and a priori belief is used - but when another method comes along that contradicts those findings- well by golly, that one must be wrong-
Keep posting- it just further shows how rediculously a priori your assumptions really are, and exposes the fact that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS flaws- Spin it however how like- but it boils down to the fact that they are all plagued with serious problems beyond 10,000 years or so.
The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
“W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.
A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
More and more wrong dates
“Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp
“Excess Argon”: The “Achillies’ Heel” of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon “Dating” of Volcanic Rocks
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict!
Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ lava flow yields radiocarbon
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
Radio-dating in Rubble
The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
“In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method.”
Want more?
[[But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method]]
That is a lie- it has been shown to PROVE that the AAR method is INNACURATE- You are citing lies as your defense? Wow!
[[The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate,]]
Hmmm- What a Cop out- These same scientists who ASSUMED they were accurate in 5the first place are now crying foul because a new method proves they were wrong, and they are trying to blame the creationists for simply pointing out how hte new tests have done so? Wow! Talk abotu twisted reasoning-
Keep posting your rebuttles Coyoteman- they just get funnier and funnier when we get to see how these folks try to squirm their way out of their mistakes and try to defend their dying long age hypothesis’
You said: [[“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]
The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these “ancient” skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?
No, its another example of creation “science” in practice.]]
Good golly- you can’t post a true ‘rebuttal’ can you? That is NOT what they were stating- they ARE statign that the AMS is MORE accurate- not less as you state- so your whole remainder of your post is irrelevent and dishonest- Not sure where you cut and pasted it from- but perhaps you should find a more relevent site to do so from when trying to rebuttal points
“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]
My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete. On the same grounds, human and dinosaur bones which have retained enough carbon to be tested by this precise method will be shown to be relatively young provided they are done in blind tests. That means samples used are not identified by where they came from.”
Otherwise (by looking at only one, even tho' it lines up the best with *your* specialization), you open yourself up to the cheap shot counterargument of "Who's nitpicking NOW?!"
As it is, I'd rather post snarky comments than do any work. It's the holiday season, and I'm distracted...
Cheers!
Coyote: But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method — a result the exact opposite of what the research actually showed! It was radiocarbon dating that corrected the earlier errors!
Spirited: Enough with scientistic quibbles, let’s cut to the chase. Macroevolution and not microevolution is the real issue of contention. Macroevolution is the notion that long, long ago a bit of primordial slime-—through many changes (reincarnation works just as nicely)——became a lizard, then a fish, then a simian, and finally by way of an evolutionary quantum leap in consciousness (thanks to the magic-offices of the Ineffable Force within the evolution deity)the simian became ‘aware’ and then Presto, Chango! there appeared a human—soulless of course.
Macroevolution is merely gnostic scientism magic. It claims that life and information (and mankind) spontaneously generated themselves from nothing.