Replies

Oh, a point I was intending to make, you might need to update history books to reflect that B-17 and P-38 lightnings were flying cover for the 1700s plate fleets or something.. Cause that's how far back the dating method would put Glacier girl and the rest of the squadron that went down with her.

Once again, the only person stupid enough to actually falsely claim that scientific dating methods would mis-date the planes is *creationist* Carl Wieland. The planes have *never* actually been scientifically (mis)dated to such an age, nor would any accepted dating methods actually produce such an age if applied in this case.

Wieland was lying or stupid, and you're coming in a close second by repeating his falsehoods here.

You can't correct for the known actual date because you don't have any fixed points in history to work against in ancient cases - none. It's a farce.

You didn't understand my post #133 AT ALL, did you? I explained to you a few of the *many* methods by which "fixed points in history" have indeed been determined and used to verify and calibrate radiometric dating (and each other) -- I even gave you links to much more information on the same topic. Furthermore, when objects of known historical age are submitted to radiocarbon labs without the labs knowing what the "expected" ages are, the results still come back correct -- which invalidates your slander that radiometric dating merely gives the answer that scientists "want" it to give. Such tests have been done regularly since *1949* -- what's your excuse for being ignorant of them? For that matter, the labs doing the dating *seldom* know what the "expected" age of the sample is. They don't know and don't care, and the procedures don't require them to. They just measure the 14C and report the *objective* calibrated age, contrary to your ignorant slurs.

So I just have to ask -- are you failing to admit that you're wrong because you're a) really that dense, or b) intellectually dishonest?

And why do I eventually end up having to ask that question of many of the creationists I talk with?

The planes have *never* actually been scientifically (mis)dated to such an age, nor would any accepted dating methods actually produce such an age if applied in this case.

Absent historical data, yes, such a false standard would be applied to these planes and that is precisely the point. You don't have newpapers to check and vast archives of photographs, etc. from 3000 years ago, much less yearly snowfall records and the like. Who do you think you're kidding.