I rebutted an error commonly repeated by creationists which attempts to discredit radiocarbon dating.
I showed where the mistake came from, and where it was wrong by referring to the original report.
Cottshop, who cut and pasted the link in which that error occurred refused to acknowledge the error in spite of the clear cut evidence showing exactly where the error was--creationists got it exactly backwards!
So far, no creationist posting to this thread has acknowledged the error.
This is why debating creationists is a fool's errand. You can show them clear evidence and they will deny or misrepresent it even if it is unimportant to their particular beliefs--just because another creationist made the claim.
And some folks wonder why I point out that they are anti-science????
[[I rebutted an error commonly repeated by creationists which attempts to discredit radiocarbon dating.]]
Lol- you did no such thing- ALL you did was confuse what was stated-
[[Cottshop, who cut and pasted the link in which that error occurred refused to acknowledge the error in spite of the clear cut evidence showing exactly where the error was—creationists got it exactly backwards!]]
Again- Wow- You still persist in beating yourself up over your silly mistake- I guess you really can’t see your error-
Lemme ask you Coyote- again- Did Radiocarbon dating refute the earlier AAR dates? Yes or no? You admitted earlier that it did- The whole article was to show that the earlier dates were wrong- Get it? It wasn’t a refutation of ALL dating metjhods- it just concentrated on the one method AAR which gave WRONG dates- Comprende? you accusation is a false accusation, and apparentl;y you are goign to persist in it-
[[And some folks wonder why I point out that they are anti-science????]]
no- some folks wonder why you cling so stubbornly to an obvious error (or perhaps intentional deceit) on your part!