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?
I really don’t see why there can’t be one major knockout, drag-out thread for the crevo fight. I believe this was attempted before, and I’m sure it’s difficult, but it seems to me to make so much more sense than having every science or religion thread that’s even tangentially related to the topic devolve into the same old crap. Only a few people on each side are really fighting it, and with all due respect to all involved, I think a lot of this is about ego more than anything else.
And honestly, if I’m reading about the ‘discovery’ of a new supernova, I don’t want to read a religion vs. science debate about stellar evolution. And if I’m reading about someone’s experience of a miracle, I’d rather not read sarcastic remarks from atheists (which are already prohibited if the religious thread is labeled appropriately) or yet another debate over the existence of miracles. I’m far from alone in this desire.
Just create an almost NHB thread and be done with it. No one is changing minds here.
“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?]]
LIE: It does no such thing- I've pointed htis out to you numerous times- but you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious
[[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.]]
LIE number 2: The bones WERE previously assumed to be hte oldest known bones and guess what? Yup, the AAR dating 'agreed' that they were, and scientists claimed for years that the bones were much much older than they actually are- as proven out by the AMS dating method which is much more accurate (although still plagued by the fact that CO2 isn't in equlibrium yet)
[[The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate,]]
LIE number 3: Creationists certainly would NOT assume hte first ages were accurate- it is ONLY the evos that beleived those ages- Creationists simply are pointing out that the new more accurate AMS REFUTES the assumptions & by gosh by golly shows that- Hey- just like we've been claimign for a logn time now, that dating methods such as AAR are INNACURATE!
[[and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrong–]]
LIE number 4: Your buddy can't even get his facts straight- and you cite him as your 'rebuttle'? Lol- Nope- they are claiming exactly what I stated above- learn to read more carefully!
[[The opposite is true:]]
No kidding? Golly- this statement perfectly aligns with what was just said in the link I posted- Hmmm- again, your buddy obviously has reading comprehension problems as well!
[[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]]
LIE number 5: Heck- we're batting a 1000 here- Again, your buddy really needs to work on his reading skills- the article simply mntioned the OBVIOUS fact that AAR dating was innacurate- that's all
[[Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts]]
Nope- but are you so desperate that you need to post blatant lies abotu what the article was talking about as your only rebuttles? Certainly you can do better?
[[Your "oldest known bones" and the "millions of years old" are creationist misrepresentations. Lies actually.]]
LIE number 6: Your side was the one presenting them as being oldest known bones fella!
[[You are working from creationist websites out to destroy any scientific findings they find inconvenient to their religious beliefs.]]
LIE number 7: We are doing NO such thing- We're simply pointing out the blatant LIES and misrepresentations that are taught in our schools as scientific truths when they are obviously NOT- If you can't handle that fact it just goes to show how insecure you are with your own hypothesis, and goes to show how broken your hypothseis really is IF you have to repeatedly keep attackign the character of those presentign the FACTS that refute your hypothesis
[[When will you realize that those sites are misrepresenting and distorting the facts, and outright lying to you?]]
Lol- that's really precious coming from someone that just presented a bunch of blatant lies- it must be nice being so naieve.