Replies

This is one of the worst attempts I've seen yet by the young earth bunch. Carbon 14 dating is unreliable past about 20,000 years or so.

Obviously you didn't read the article. What it says is that there IS measurable C14 throughout the fossil layers, showing that the material is less than 20,000 years.

Reading an article before posting about it is always helpfull.

What it says is that there IS measurable C14 throughout the fossil layers, showing that the material is less than 20,000 years.

What the ICR charlatans don't tell the credulous, superstitious boobs upon whom they prey is that carbon is highly mobile in the form of CO₂ (atmospheric) and/or carbonic acid (which is essentially CO₂ dissolved in water), making it easy to find contamination by modern carbon in old rocks if you're looking to do so.

Obviously you didn't read the article. What it says is that there IS measurable C14 throughout the fossil layers, showing that the material is less than 20,000 years. Reading an article before posting about it is always helpfull.

I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere. Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine. You are basically taking background noise outside the range of carbon-dating technology and trumpeting it as proof of your opinions.

The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position, which is basically proving your position with a negative.

Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution, so turn off the knee-jerk reactions.