[SirLinksalot]

<<<<
Son, I know a bit about radiocarbon dating.
>>>

Yes father, I think you do. But I think there are other people who also DO radio carbon dating who disagree with you. You may call them ignorant, thats fine with me. But I don't think you can dismiss their academic credentials so easily.

<<<<<<
This post you made contains nothing but creationist's dreams.
>>>>>>

Maybe we can replace dreams with challenges.

<<<<<<<<
It is not science, but a ridiculous attempt to distort science to a particular result. (Its not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong!)
>>>>>>>>>

Very nice attack. But the devil is in the details.

<<<<<
Tell me, how many scientists who actually do radiocarbon dating have signed on to this?
>>>>

1) How many scientists during Galileo's time actually supported him ? ANSWER : A MINORITY

2) How many scientists during Jenner's time believed him ?

Since we are into links, might as well provide some to balance the ones you provided :

Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico to examine various approaches to stratigraphy within the creation model.

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

Geology and the Age of the Earth

http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

Examining the credibility of the much-publicized “geologic column” (and why it always seems to look bigger in print!).

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Examining the facts behind radiometric (& other) dating methods cited by evolutionists to “prove” their million-year scenarios.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Examining the documentations provided by National Geographic regarding radio carbon dating.

http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp

Examining the science behind the claims of a very old earth using carbon dating techniques

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But I think there are other people who also DO radio carbon dating who disagree with you."

Just a little info for you. Coyoteman works with carbon dating on a regular (weekly) basis. You have been warned, though a little too late to help you. :)

[Ichneumon]

Yes father, I think you do. But I think there are other people who also DO radio carbon dating who disagree with you.

Because they're idiots and/or charlatans.

You may call them ignorant, thats fine with me. But I don't think you can dismiss their academic credentials so easily.

Sure I can, since I can identify the elementary, bone-headed errors they make. For example, from your own post:

Examining the science behind the claims of a very old earth using carbon dating techniques

See, there's an idiotic, incompetent comment right there. "Carbon dating techniques" top out at about 40,000 years. Thus they're not used, *can't* be used, to examine or make any conclusions about "a very old Earth". OTHER techniques are used for that.

Only a completely ignorant, clueless creationist could make such a childishly stupid error as that. It's like saying, "Examining the science behind the claims of very distant stars using yardstick techniques"...

You creationists are welcome to come back and try again when you have the first clue, and have a better grasp of science than the average junior-high school student. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case, thus the need for enormously long lists such as this one, detailing the errors and fallacies that creationists keep making time after time after time after time. Read it and weep, it deals with all the classic blunders in your links, and then some.

Just for variety, why don't you guys go get some *new* fallacies for a change? The old ones are getting really stale.