As predicted- people scream for facts and links- when provided- they throw their hands over their ears and say 'nuh uh'
Want to know why dating methods aren't reliable? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
Here's how your sources distort:
" When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent."
They have deleted the number "70 million years" and replaced it with "recent"!
If your sources believe recent is 70 million years ago, then you lose the YEC argument.
BTW, your "Cook" was a creationist.
Your link leads to a page of additional links. Rather than try to wade through them all I looked at the first link (which I have examined before).
The article deals with radiometric dating, and the section on radiocarbon dating (which is what we have been discussing) concludes with:
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
Anyone who attempts to calibrate a scientific method by reference to a mythical flood is not doing science. They are doing apologetics (defense of religion).
Is there any better science on any of the other links? So far, your links are just a waste of our time.
---SCIENCE proves the facts listed?---
One of their scientists they use to support their position.
Dr Andrew Snelling ... now works full-time with the Creation Science Foundation