[Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.]
No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.
No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.
The link you posted contains little other than an ad trying to sell me a book. There is nothing there for an "ad hominem attack."
And I "misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it?" The links you cite all together amount to a few hours of "study" by their respective authors -- all with the intent of finding a few scientific sounding terms which will serve to fool those who don't know any better.
Son, I know better. The tripe on those links doesn't fool me; it just makes me shake my head in disgust at how gullible their intended audience really is.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but I must include you in that audience. You clearly know little of science, but are willing to take the word of any creationist website, no matter how ridiculous their arguments are shown to be, because you want to believe them.
That may be fine in creationist circles, but it is not science and I think you know it.
(Are you ever going to support some of the silly comments you have made about radiocarbon dating? Or have you given up?)