Replies

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]”

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.

[[The skeletons were not very old. The racemization technique was experimental, and suggested a great antiquity. It was shown to be wrong.]]

They were the skeletons that Evos assured us were the oldest humans- Not very old? Change you mind much?

[[But you won’t believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate.]]

Lol- yup- it’s us who are ‘antiscience’- Pretty funny Coyoteman- especially after seeign you try to wiggle out of the AMS findings for several posts now

[[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]]

Lol- Again- pay attention- The article wasn’t qurestioning hte AMS technique- it was however questioning the AAR that supposedly showed the OLDEST HUMAN BONES to be supposedly millions of years old- when hte new technique came along, it just FURTHER PROVED how baised and how full of innacurate assumptions dating ‘specialists’ really are when it comes ot dating fossils and bones, and how intellectually dishonest they really are-

You can try and turn this aroudn all you like, but your efforts are irelevent- the facts stand on their own merrit

[[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.]]

Good- because what they will see is that you can’t even make a cogherrent arguyment based o nthe facts- Who cares if you know hte author personally? That doesn’t make his article any more relevent to what was being discussed hwere for the reasons I posted above- Shame you can’t see that- So yes, let’s let the peopel judge who is being more intellectually honest Coyoteman- I guaruntee you that you won’t be on the winners podium.

[[But you won’t believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate. ]]

You can squak about Creationists and ID folks being ‘anti-science’ all you like- but the FACTS show your simply trying to cover up the ugly fact that it’s the evolutionists who are entrenched in deceit and false assumptions and petty accusations- By the way- no comment on all the other evidences which show serious problems with hte other dating methods eh? All you can mount for a defense is a case where you misrepresent what was being said about AMS? Again, just so htere;’s no confusion on your part- The article was statign that AMS is more accurate, and shows the boens that were INTENTIONALLY presented as being the OLDEST KNOWN BONES of humans, claiming htem to be in the millions of years old, were actually young bones- thanks to AMS findings- ALSO- please note- you haven’t even bothered to touch the fact that CO2 isn’t in equilibrium yet- which would make hte bones even younger- hmmm- it just keeps gettign worse and worse for old age advocates and hteir a priori ‘science’-

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.”