And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiocarbon dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
Great posts and commendable patience are yours!
This one paragraph shows why it is useless to discuss science with you. I am doing this for the lurkers, because you are unwilling to learn anything about the science you so disparage.
I have told you over and over again that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 50,000 years. It is not used to date the age of the earth.
How can you argue against the accuracy of the radiocarbon method when you don't even know what it is or how it works?
This seems to be the epitome of the creationist method:
That science stuff disagrees with our beliefs so its wrong somehow; we don't know how (science is hard!) but it's just gotta be wrong.