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?
Just one?
(I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes.)