[fortheDeclaration]

Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (The)
by John Woodmorappe
SKU: 10-3-090
List Price: $12.99
Price: $12.99
Publisher: Institute for Creation Research
Published: 1999
A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.
Woodmorappe
10-3-090
radiometric
dating
radiation
radioactive
carbon
dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Mythology-of-Modern-Dating-Methods-The,4612,226.aspx

[Coyoteman]

Thanks, but I don't need Woodmorappe (the pseudonym for a high school teacher) or Answers in Genesis to tell me about radiocarbon dating. Also, the RATE project is doing creation "science" and that says it all.

If you want to learn about radiocarbon dating, I have included some links below.

But I still need you to show me how radiocarbon dating past 6,000 years is incorrect. All you have done is link to religious apologists comments.

You need to use science in your argument if you want scientists to pay any attention. And creation "science" is not going to cut it. Just one quick example--don't some of these folks calibrate the radiocarbon method by reference to the global flood? What a joke!

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.

[ColdWater]

“A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.”

Your link gives nothing to refute radioactive dating.

[ColdWater]

Isn’t it lovely when John Woodmorappe quotes Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis?