And the article is a laugh. In one of its major points it cites dates in Radiocarbon only up to 1969? What a joke! There have been hundreds of thousands of dates done since then, and the technique has been improved greatly. And what it did cite was riddled with errors.
Why is it that creationists can't make their case on its merits, and have to deliberately mislead folks and distort the scientific evidence?
No wonder scientists don't take creationists or creation "science" seriously.
Most issues of Radiocarbon are on line, and folks can check them out for themselves.
Here are some good links for those who want to see what radiocarbon dating is really about:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric 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)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow 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?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
It is not riddled with errors, why do you insist on being dishonest? Shall I give you another? Anyone out there should look up www.bible.ca get a creation scientist and an evolutionist and the evolutionist wont even show up for the debate. as amatter of fact this has been doen already, a man has proposed a debate on national television and to get an evolutionist to debate him on evolution and not one evolutionist would step up to the plate.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#c14
"Here is the correct link to that site. And the article is a laugh."
thats a lame reply and I dont get your points, put downs arent science!