[Coyoteman]

they are oft repeated coyote becaUSE they are facts which dispute the reliability of carbon dating- if you have a calculator that adds 2 and 2 and gets five- then you can show the error with a fact- same with the radio carbon dating- They throw out readings that don't correspond with their preconceived notions of how old the earth should be- I used to have all this info in notes on my hard-drive- but if you're set on believing selected numbers then you're going to ignore just how prevelent the case is that uncorresponding numbers are thrown out.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating and I find your comments to be uninformed. You better go find the notes on your hard drive and get back to me.

Unless it is just standard creation "science" from AnswersinGenesis.org or any of those other creationists sites. If so, don't bother. I have checked out their writings and from a scientific viewpoint they are nonsense.

So far I have posted some good links to comprehensive articles on radiocarbon and radiometric dating, and you have just posted your personal disbelief.

If you can bring up any specific problems with radiocarbon dating let me know and perhaps I can help you understand them. But please avoid those creationist websites; they are simply not telling you the truth.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Do you DARE doubt such creationist leaders as Dr. Dino Kent Hovind? He got his degree from a real school.

[UpAllNight]

--please avoid those creationist websites; they are simply not telling you the truth.--

Aren't they the word of God?

[CottShop]

what's nonsense about them coyote? Mt. St Helens showing false readings, Lava flows also showing false readings- beyond a certain date carbon dating is useless.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm

There's a more accurate dating methods from Zircons I beleive it is- Gah- i had all this info too- I can't remember if it is helium or some other element that escapes at a set rate-

Here's part of what I had- I did reformat and lost muich of what I'd found- but here's a short list I had saved- some are Christian some not- But despite some being Christian- is it an automatic discredit by you? Because what they present is fact:

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you'd need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

[jim35]

If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?