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.
OK- let’s do baby talk so that you understand you mistake- if possible-
FIRST- you didn’t even cite the right link- then you take a conclusions from ANOTHER site, and try to make it look like hte site that originally posted the link was the one that came to that conclusion? Wow coyote- you are REALLY BEING DECEITFUL!
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]
Tell me coyoteman- WHERE did it EVER state in that quote that the author who posted was saying ‘RadiocARBON dating is therefore unreliable’? Tell us all Coyotman- Because We’d REALLY like to know where the ORIGINAL site EVER said any such thing? The original site infact said ONLY that we should use caution when relying on the AAR dating method because it was shown to be wrong with the new AMS dating method which is more accurate-
Here- let me post what was ACTUALLY said on the site that we were discussing, and hwich you falsely claimed somethign that simply was not true about hte site:
“Radiocarbon dating is still a young science and even though there has been done a lot of research we must understand that each individual tends to accept those data which fit his expectations. What I am attempting to do now is point out some areas of cautions or possible pitfalls in relying too heavily on such dating methods.”
Again0- Tell us how that translates into you your claim that ‘christians are stating that because eleven human skeletons were dated with AMS method, subsequently showing that the previous AAR method was wrong, that therefore Radiometric dating is wrong?
Tell us Coyoteman where christians EVER make hte claim that bbecause 1 single incident nullifies the authenticity of Radiometric dating?
The fact is Coyoteman- that htere are NUMEROUS reasons why Radiometric dating is flat out wrong- Here- here’s the correct link again- incase peopel might have been misled by your deceitful cover-up attempt and WRONG link!!
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Really Coyoteman- quit making crap up as you go along- it’s really hurting your reputation!
For htose who might be following htis- Here is Coyoteman’s claim “The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.”
Well is it wrong Coyoteman? Was hte mthod used to date htem wrong or not? We’re waiting!- oh wait- here’s a quote from you a little further down “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.”
Where did He EVER sate that because AAR method was wrong that Radiocarbon dating therefore was wrong? Where Coyoteman? You simply made up that false claim, and now are trying to point to another website in order to cover up your mistake, and you are ALSO tryign to Deceitfully and falsely claim thatthe one you pointed to is inferring that because that one series of tests was done, that they now claim it refutes Radiocarbon dating- You are lying to everyone here Coyoteman, and you know it!!
[[But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.]]
It is? Where? Again, you’re lying! The ONLY implication was that AAR was wrong in that particular case! The REST of his article mentions why Radiocarbon dating shouldn’t be relied on as accurate is because we are not in equilibrium! I guess you missed that hwole part eh? Or is it simply that you don’t have any answers to that scientifically supported claim, and you therefore have to make up lies about those who post those problems with radiometric/radiocarbon dating methods?
Did you have you ‘shame gland’ surgically removed Coyote?
FIRST- you didn’t even cite the right link!!- then you take a conclusions from ANOTHER site, and try to make it look like hte site that originally posted the link was the one that came to that conclusion? Wow coyote- you are REALLY BEING DECEITFUL!
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]
Tell me coyoteman- WHERE did it EVER state in that quote that the author who posted was saying ‘RadiocARBON dating is therefore unreliable’? Tell us all Coyotman- Because We’d REALLY like to know where the ORIGINAL site EVER said any such thing? The original site infact said ONLY that we should use caution when relying on the AAR dating method because it was shown to be wrong with the new AMS dating method which is more accurate-
Here- let me post what was ACTUALLY said on the site that we were discussing, and hwich you falsely claimed somethign that simply was not true about hte site:
“Radiocarbon dating is still a young science and even though there has been done a lot of research we must understand that each individual tends to accept those data which fit his expectations. What I am attempting to do now is point out some areas of cautions or possible pitfalls in relying too heavily on such dating methods.”
Again0- Tell us how that translates into you your claim that ‘christians are stating that because eleven human skeletons were dated with AMS method, subsequently showing that the previous AAR method was wrong, that therefore Radiometric dating is wrong?
Tell us Coyoteman where christians EVER make hte claim that bbecause 1 single incident nullifies the authenticity of Radiometric dating?
The fact is Coyoteman- that htere are NUMEROUS reasons why Radiometric dating is flat out wrong- Here- here’s the correct link again- incase peopel might have been misled by your deceitful cover-up attempt and WRONG link!!
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Really Coyoteman- quit making crap up as you go along- it’s really hurting your reputation!
For htose who might be following htis- Here is Coyoteman’s claim “The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.”
Well is it wrong Coyoteman? Was hte mthod used to date htem wrong or not? We’re waiting!- oh wait- here’s a quote from you a little further down “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.”
Where did He EVER sate that because AAR method was wrong that Radiocarbon dating therefore was wrong? Where Coyoteman? You simply made up that false claim, and now are trying to point to another website in order to cover up your mistake, and you are ALSO tryign to Deceitfully and falsely claim thatthe one you pointed to is inferring that because that one series of tests was done, that they now claim it refutes Radiocarbon dating- You are lying to everyone here Coyoteman, and you know it!!
[[But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.]]
It is? Where? Again, you’re lying! The ONLY implication was that AAR was wrong in that particular case! The REST of his article mentions why Radiocarbon dating shouldn’t be relied on as accurate is because we are not in equilibrium! I guess you missed that hwole part eh? Or is it simply that you don’t have any answers to that scientifically supported claim, and you therefore have to make up lies about those who post those problems with radiometric/radiocarbon dating methods?
Did you have you ‘shame gland’ surgically removed Coyote?
You replied: The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.
I swear- it's the same stinking thing with people like you time and time again- when something comes up which presents a slew of problems with somethign you support- you simply make crap up to suit your bias!
EVEN IF you are now goign to point to a totally different site, and going to try to make the same lame accusation against 'Christians', you are STILL making a FALSE CLAIM! There was a slew of reasons on that particular site why Radiocarbon dating has serious problems associated with it- BUT, instead, you simply pull one irrelevent quote out of the slerw of problems, and try to make it look as though the person was ONLY using that one issue to show problems with Radiocarbon dating, and that is just flat out deceitful!
So here- here are the rest of hte reasons why He said Radiocarbon dating was problem ridden:
SEVENTEEN RADIODATING PROBLEMS Here is a brief discussion of some of the serious hurdles to accuracy in radiocarbon dating:
(1) TYPE OF CARBONUncertainties regarding just what type of carbon is in a given sample causes significant errors in dating....
(2) VARIATIONS WITHIN SAMPLESThen there is the problem of variations within each of the samples.
13) LOSS OF C-14Rainfall, below-ground moisture, lakes, and oceans, will affect samples and cause a loss of C-14, and thus ruin its radiation clock.
(4) LESSON FROM JARMOJarmo was an ancient village that was inhabited for not over 500 years.
(5) CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBONIn addition, there is the problem of what carbonic and atmospheric conditions were like in earlier times.
(6) SUNSPOT EFFECT ON C-14 PRODUCTIONSunspot production seriously affects our planet in a number of ways, one of these is radiocarbon production in the atmosphere.
(7) RADIOCARBON DATE SURVEYA major survey of 15,000 dates obtained by carbon 14 dating revealed that, in spite of its errors, radiocarbon dating still yields dates that are millions and even billions of years younger than those obtained by other radiodating techniques (uranium, thorium, potassium, etc.):
(8) CHANGE IN NEUTRINO RADIATIONA change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere in earlier times would also affect radiocarbon levels.
(9) RECENT DATES ARE MOST ACCURATEIt is rather well known that carbon 14 dates, going back about 2,600 years, tend to be the most accurate. But, prior to about 600 B.C., the dates given by radiocarbon analysis begin lengthening out excessively.
(10) IF WARMER AND MORE WATER VAPORIf the earth was either warmer at an earlier time, or had more water in the atmosphere (both of which we believe happened before and during the Flood), then the C-14 clocks would register long ages of time prior to about 2000 B.C.
(11) COSMIC RAYSThe amount of cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial.
(12) MAGNETIC FIELDThe greater the magnetic field of the earth, the smaller the amounts of cosmic rays that will strike our world, and it is cosmic radiation into our atmosphere that changes C-12 into C-14.
(13) MOISTURE CONDITIONSAtmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also be significant. Changes in ground moisture, even temporary ones would have an even greater impact.
(14) DRAMATIC CHANGES AFTER FLOOD For some time after the Flood there were changes in the atmosphere (a loss of water from the vapor canopy), changes in climate (due to worldwide warmth changing to cooler conditions), and changes due to volcanism and glaciation.
(15) EVEN MODERN SPECIMENS ARE INACCURATEBut it is a surprising fact that even specimens from recent centuries show serious problems.
(16) CARBON INVENTORYDue to drastic changes at the time of that immense catastrophe, the Flood, there is reason to believe that dramatic changes were occurring at that time in the carbon 14 content of the atmosphere.
(17) FOUR RADIOCARBON SAMPLESThere should be evidence of this dramatic changeover in C-14 rates in specimens examined. And so we find it. Here are four interesting radiocarbon samples:
Again- here is hte link for htose that want to further investigate the serious problems with Radiometric and radiocarbon dating, and for those that want their FACTS WITHOUT dishonest commentary, and false misrepresentations and accusations peppering the comments! :
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm
He goes on to list many many many more problems with radiometric and radiocarbon dating methods, and it is deceitful and intellectually DISHONEST of you and the feller you quoted from to try to make it out like he or anyone else was trying to make it look like Radiocarbon dating was wrong simply based on the fact that one single incident showed that previous AAR dating was ALSO wrong!
Again- when hte goign gets tough for you guys, apparently, you must reach into the gutter of deceit and misrepresentation in order to 'defend' your views? And apaprently, you can't simply try to refute the evidnences presented in a rational, intellectually honest, and civil manner, and must throw in copious amounts of petty snide remarks abotu htose you dissagree with? It's impossible havign a civil discussion with someone liek yourself, because you can't stick to hte FACTS, you can't refrain from vitriolic, petty attacks, and you can't seem to mount intellectually honest rebuttles! I told you I didn't want to keep hammering you on this, but you insist on making yourself look silly, so- whatever- lay in the bed you've made for yourself.
This from someone who automatically and reflexively responds to any challenge to his cult with auto-parrot responses of:
"Inquisition"!!!!!, "burnings at the stake"!!!!!!!! and "theocracy"!!!!!!!!, shrieking with his hair on fire, without fail.