Posted on 10/26/2006 3:17:58 PM PDT by Boxen
I'd have to see the paper the researchers published. Odds are they dated the matrix within which the amber was found.
"But moths, birds and hominids have."
"Says who? Says what?"
If you can't do the research to educate yourself I won't waste my time doing it for you.
You can find me at DarwinCentral.org.
OK. Thanks for the update. Feel free to keep in touch.
> I'd have to see the paper the researchers published.
Get back to me when you do.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html
And we know that carbon dating in totally inaccurate. This is evidence of that.
After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.