[Coyoteman]

Now to see If I can find someone that can read as well as write.

I can read.

I read the site False Assumptions of Radio Carbon dating you linked to in #131, and replied in #146. The article, on a site called BiblicalChronologist.org, did not confirm what you were saying, in fact it showed just the opposite.

I provided another link on radiocarbon dating as well.

Rather than make a good argument for radiocarbon dating being inaccurate, and thus supporting a young earth, you have actually supported the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating method with your post.

[Coyoteman]

In your post #131 to me earlier today on this thread, you referred me to a website with a link purported to contradict the radiocarbon dating method.

With some research, I found that the article you referenced, and several others on the same site, do not contradict the radiocarbon dating method at all.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating. I am providing links to each of the primary articles below:

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Hope this helps.