...and if you had bothered to read the many responses, you'd have learned that "the article" (from a creationist source) was lying about that point. The lab had *not* made such a claim.
Remember the lab was the one dating the sample and is one of the same labs quoted by evolutionists to prove their theory's.
Yes, but real scientists don't lie about the results, like the creationists did.
Like the standard complaint of ID people, if the data does not fit the thesis, evolutionist throw it out.
There's *another* creationist lie. No, evolutionists *don't* do that.
Why not repeat the experiment with other samples and show the contamination was the problem? Nope, that is not done because it shows simple contamination was NOT the problem as the methodology shows.
Yet another lie. Gee, thanks.
How can this lab be the proof when its data that contradicts is so easily dismissed as flawed when it is contradicting, yet is quoted stock in trade when it fits?
I've got a novel idea -- why don't you ask a question about what *really* happened, instead of making numerous false accusations?
If the sample is contaminated, as the lab states organics could not do it due to its careful methodology, it must be mineral contamination.
That's not what was said, try again.
And if mineral contamination, IT PROVES that Carbon 14 migrates and therefore proves that radio-metrics is unreliable at large date spans.
Still wrong.
But rather than face the obvious, the whole data must be tossed out, or it will open a whole can of worms for evolutionists.
Wow, what spin -- do you get dizzy when you do that?
No, sorry. What actually happened was that a creationist sent a strange sample to a lab to be radiocarbon dated. The lab tested the amount of radiocarbon in the object, and sent back a report indicating that the amount of radiocarbon found in the object indicates an age of XX thousand years, *if* a) the radiocarbon was original and not contaminated to some degree with modern radiocarbon, and b) the object was once part of a living thing which acquired its carbon primarily from direct or indirect well-mixed atmospheric sources.
All scientists know that these are the conditions necessary to get an accurate and meaningful radiocarbon date. If those conditions are violated, all bets are off, and only an idiot or a liar would use the results in that case - which of course is exactly what the creationists did.
*Real* scientists will only report dates (indeed, will only bother sending samples to be dated in the first place) if they can be "certain beyond a reasonable doubt" that their sample meets the requirements (see above) needed to result in an accurate radiocarbon date. There are many ways to do this, and many ways to cross-check results, and scientists routinely do so when dating specimens, and before reporting them. And if there are any lingering doubts on any point, they'll report that at the same time and include the amount of potential error in their results (which is why dates are usually reported as "XX years old plus-or-minus YY").
The creationist, on the other hand, didn't bother with all of that "real science" stuff. They just sent in a strange sample of unknown material, from unknown sources, of unknown level of contamination (thereby grossly violating both conditions "a" and "b" mentioned above), and then gleefully reported the lab results as an "obvious flaw in radiocarbon dating". Um, no. If they had been honest, they'd have actually reported it as, "hi, we had no idea whether this was even an appropriate thing to radiocarbon date, nor did we even try to find out, but we submitted it to the lab anyway, and to no one's surprise we got an answer back that was probably invalid, as anyone could have predicted in advance, so this is just a typical case of 'garbage in, garbage out', don't mind us"...
But the creationists weren't that honest, so they just lied about what their idiotic exercise actually revealed.
Sorry guy, but both of these situations are checkmate situations and tossing over the chessboard is not a valid scientific solution. Your reactions are called science by faith, not by sight.
See above. You haven't a clue.
Rather than argue the whole point I thought I would bring up the simplistic samples from two separate sources that prove the fallibility of radio-metrics. But, if you insist... -grin-
The only "fallibility of radio-metrics" is that they don't produce valid results on samples that they're not designed to measure (just as, for example, a fever thermometer won't give correct results when placed in molten steel). Real scientists submit appropriate samples, because they want to get valid answers. Creationists submit inappropriate samples, because they *want* to get wrong answers. It's as simple as that. All that really "proves" is that a) creationists are dishonest, and b) using a method in ways known to be inappropriate will give inappropriate results (duh).
The methodology cannot be refuted, as this work was done in top level labs,
Nor does it need to be. The "methodology" correctly reported the amount of radiocarbon in the sample. But the creationists dishonestly (mis)interpreted the results, due to their (intentional) failure to determine whether the sample was of an appropriate nature which would enable the radiocarbon measurement to be translated into a meaningful, accurate date.
With only a few very special exceptions, radiocarbon dating only works on things which were once alive. If your sample wasn't, then you're going to get a date which is meaningless. It's up to you to ensure that your sample *was* once a living thing. The creationists didn't even bother. They just lied about it. So they got a meaningless "date". Whoopee. This is a "problem" for radiocarbon dating methods *how*, exactly?
so attack the messenger seems to be your only answer to all these honest and quite puzzling questions I have posed here.
There is nothing "honest" nor "puzzling" about your questions.
You display far more smoke and mirror than a Catholic Priest questioned by a teenager on sexual issues.
Uh huh. Sure. Look, if you don't understand the explanations, feel free to ask for clarification. But I suspect that instead you're just playing dumb.
A little honesty would help,
Yes, it would -- feel free to start, and to get your creationist heros to do likewise.
and I am afraid this thread is a perfect example of the level of honesty that ID would be delivered to the children in your humanistic indoctrination sessions called public school by the priests of PC science.
Indeed -- it would honestly be shown to be the work of charlatans and liars, like the ones who wrote the intentionally deceptive "radiocarbon dating of an unknown thingy" article.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you're not fooling anyone.
You seem not to have actually read the critiques, available online, of Snellings article.
Lurkers can read for themselves. Then they can check for obfuscation in your post and also decide forthemselves where the credibility lies.