[[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!
Yesterday you cut and pasted to me a lot of different links. I decided to check up on one of them, dealing with radiocarbon dating--a field with which I am familiar.
The article you linked to was titled "Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating." It included the following as an example of a problem with Carbon-14 dating:
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 implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.
This error originates from Brown's book In the Beginning. He got this wrong and many creationist websites have uncritically copied his error.
Here is how another creationist website puts it:
"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.CONCLUSION As with the other methods of non-historical dating, we find that radiocarbon dating is also highly inaccurate. Source
The fact is those skeletons really were young! The method by which they were originally considered to be ancient, amino acid racemization, was the one in error. Carbon-14 dating corrected that error.
These skeletal dates cannot honestly be used as an example of a problem with Carbon-14 dating. But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.
But you and other creationists on this thread refuse to acknowledge that it is an error.
Until you acknowledge this error there is no point in further discussion. No Gish gallup, no nonsense, no dozens of similar links. If you and other creationists can't acknowledge a mistake like this you demonstrate that you are impervious to fact and reason, and show that you simply aren't worth the effort.