[[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’-
“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.”
Still wrong. The Taylor article summarizes the previous age estimates for these skeletons. They were between 15,000 and 70,000 years (page 137).
Your "oldest known bones" and the "millions of years old" are creationist misrepresentations. Lies actually.
And there is no confusion on my part. I an working from the original article and a pretty good knowledge of the radiocarbon dating method.
You are working from creationist websites out to destroy any scientific findings they find inconvenient to their religious beliefs. And you are buying the nonsense they are peddling uncritically. When will you realize that those sites are misrepresenting and distorting the facts, and outright lying to you?