[GodGunsGuts]

Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

—GGG

[Coyoteman]

Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I will continue to examine the article, but I am not willing to accept that all assumptions are unjustified, nor am I willing to accept that the assumptions used are no better than wild guesses.

This seems to be a common creation "science" tactic lately -- "Your [test, theory, etc.] is based on assumptions, so its probably wrong."

Anyway, I am glad that you got those three errors off Dr. Pitman's website. I'll see how many more I can find.