Again you prove my points about being anti-science and unqualified to comment in these areas.
AMS is radiometric dating! It is being used to dispute amino acid racemization dating, which has been shown to be inaccurate in a number of instances.
And these are human bones being dated, not fossils.
See, you really don't know what you are talking about, and you prove it with every post. Keep it up!
Golly- I made a mistake after posting about 20,000 words today- I posted Radiometric instead of AAR Method- Gosh- ya got me-
Now answer hte quesation- Which is the accurate method? What are you measuring against to KNOW that you’re preferred method of dating fossils is accurate? What say you to the confessions by hte good doctor that we’re not in equillibrium & the fact that anyone that uses methods to determine ages are doing so based solely on a priori beliefs?
The ‘rebuttle” You posted has absolutely NOTHING to do with hte article I posted- Is AMS accurate, and IF so, how does htis confluict with your a priori belief? Obviously, AMS is supposed to be far more accurate, and as such, would show that the BONES (Human fossilized bones) are much much younger- your little cut and paste does absolutely NOTHING to discredit that fact. All it is is a cop out! The article link I posted is talking about the age of the bones, and how the new AMS method is far more accurate- showing that hte old method was indeed wonky, or that the assumptions and a priori beliefs of htose dating fossils over-rode the actual results which didn’t copnform to their long age hypothesis!
Don’t try to wiggle out of htis one- Are the bones young or not?
“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]”
I’m tired- and you’re posting accusatiosn that simply are untrue- and you’re talking in circles abotu subjects that aren’t even being discussed- noone is using hte AMS to refute Radiometric dating- they are using it to refute certain radiometric methods- but not to worry- there are plenty of other evidences which refute the other methods as well- which you’ll find in the list I provided a coupel of posts ago- but for now, I’ll have to respond to anym ore false accusations later- it’s hard enough trying to keep up with your convoluted twistings of what is actually presented- gonna have to get refreshed to combat the rabbit trails you present. Heaven forbid I post a mistake- because that would just be fodder for you and buddies to glom onto all the while ignoring the myriad other facts presented which are actually relevent to hte discussion at hand.