Here- buy the book-
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
[]Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)[]
the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.
The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.
The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
You keep spouting this creationist nonsense about radiocarbon dating and how those evil archaeologists manipulate the data.
Son, I am one of those "evil archaeologists," and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating; I have been studying the subject pretty carefully for over 35 years. Neither you nor any of those silly creationist websites you keep citing have any idea of what I or my colleagues do -- you make that clear with every ridiculous comment you make and every link you post on the subject. You simply don't have a clue, yet you insist on braying loudly your ignorance for all to see.
If you were a scientist and made comments as poorly reasoned as you do here, you could look forward to an immediate retirement.
For the lurkers who might be interested in more information on radiocarbon dating, here are some good links:
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.
You need to cite a real reference, not a science denier site. There is no content on creationwiki that’s worth the effort to read. No one there knows what they are talking about. It’s a prime example of the Purveyors of Unknowledge. Obviously you’ve never actually done such an experiment, not do you understand the first thing about radiometric dating. You should stop peddling ignorance.