[Coyoteman]

That is a pretty picture made by speculation.

Science only deals with the hear and now. It can only speculate about the past and only make assumptions of the future.

The article is filled with assumptions.

Or was that a date on the jaw bone I saw.

Dating methods only fulfill evolutionary needs, they are all that is all speculative, assumptive, and indecisive.

If you have a specific problem with my post, please state it.

Otherwise, your post is generic, unsupported anti-science nonsense.

About all I can glean from your post is that you don't like "dating methods." Please examine the links below and let me know what you would like help on.

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

[Creationist]

Coyoteman,

Your dating methods are all speculative.

Deny that you assume the sample to be pure in nature and the product you are interpreting is the product of decay.

Deny that when you find a rock in a certain strata that you expect a date based upon the fossil content of that strata.

Deny that you Coyoteman date every sample with a presupposition of older than 6000 years when it pertains to evolution or age of earth.