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]”
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]”
The skeletons were not very old. The racemization technique was experimental, and suggested a great antiquity. It was shown to be wrong.
When the AMS method of radiocarbon dating was developed it showed that the skeletons were not very old. Creationists made a mistake in using this as an example of the inaccuracy of the AMS dating technique--they didn't know what they were doing. Being anti-science they never bothered to study these things.
And likewise you have no idea what you are talking about. You get your information from crackpot creationist websites. I have that original article here in the office, and I have known the author professionally for over 20 years.
But you won't believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate.
People will judge you and your cause by the accuracy of what you post. You can't post nonsense and make up for it in volume, or in vehemence.