"My guess is you will ignore this piece of wood measured in error, as it was not the bone and reply with a 5 line comment that three lines are personal attacks."
"Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale. Snelling has not submitted this article for peer-review, nor does he apparently have any intention of doing so. The paper is for dissemination to other young-earth creationists. As you read, please note that the principle question regarding these studies is the level of contamination in the samples. Snelling NEVER addresses the fundamental objection.
Photo of Alleged Sample (See above reference)
Intrigued, I decided to pursue this matter in a bit more detail. I wrote to the head of Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group (Dr. Cherkinsky) who responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail:
From: Alex
Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions
Dear Joe
I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures
lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which
could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.
Best regards.
Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager"
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm
Yet another creationist lie.
Now you can answer Ichneumon's post.
And I eagerly await your explanation for how 8 closely related people can be the ancestor's of 6 billion people without causing a severe genetic bottleneck. Or your explanation for how the koala got to Australia.
I find it curious that you can prove that there was no genetic bottleneck in the past, as all genetics stem even in evolution from the ultimate genetic bottleneck, the original breeding pair. Place by design or by evolution, but placed just the same. You simply do not understand how Koala's got to America and Europe either.
Most likely in a cage because they are so darn cute, the same reasons Koala's are around the world right now.