[[What you and your chortling buddies overlook, in your zeal to nitpick fragments of the evidence Coyoteman referred to, is that the various lines of evidence come together to support each other’s dates. Dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, and historical information all give the same results...]]
Yep- they certainly do, when you get enough varied dates together and compare them, you can come up with anyhtign you wish:
“But let us right now put to rest a frequently stated misconception: that radiodating methods have successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating system conjectures in the so-called “geologic column” of rock strata. That is not true!
ONLY THREE USEABLE TEST RESULTS—In reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating. In fact, radiodating is so conflicting in its results, that, out of hundreds of thousands of tests,—ONLY THREE test results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be used as “norms.” Each of these, of course, could only apply to a single stratum.
Out of tens of thousands of tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough to rock strata age theories to be useable,—and two of them are just interpolated guesses based on “strata thickness.” Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil dating theory”
“”It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators.”—*J. Ogden III, “The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon,” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.”
Which ones are accepted from the wildly varying dates? The ones that come closest to the A-Priori beliefs of course. Doesn’t matter if they’re off by a few million or so, as long as it’s “In the ballpark” lol.
“*Flint and *Rubin declare that radiocarbon dating is consistent within itself. What they do not mention is that the published C-14 dates are only “consistent” because the very large number of radiocarbon dates which are not consistent are discarded!”
http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6b.htm
[[Except for dating methods like argon-argon, fission track, helium, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, utetium-hafnium, neon-neon, optically stimulated luminescence, potassium-argon, radiocarbon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, ranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, uranium-uranium, and events like SN1987A and the death star galaxy, what has science got to contradict a 6000 year old earth?]]
Wowzers- look at all dem impresive sounding methods- what a line-up- certainly the dating methods must then be true- whoops- there are MANY problems with every one of those- problems that rely on assumptiuons about past unknowns and ‘contaminations’ etc.
We’ve been over every single one of those methods and pointed out the blaring innacuracies and problems associated with them before- however, for those who ignored past refutations of the accuracies of those methods- I will again present them here so that people aren’t left with the mistaken impression that the dating game is a reliable and dependable ‘science’.
You wrote: Could you show me something that supports that contention?
My reply: I will let the experts speek for themselves on this matter:
“As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology ‘research’”.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EED61331F931A25752C1A9649C8B63
A second problem manifested itself in Davos. I, for
one, was quite surprised to learn that dendrochronological
data in some countries is considered highly
proprietary. One wonders what the governments of
the various countries will do with the secret treering
data. The value, therefore, of the new European
dendrochronological “database” is vitiated if there
are no data attached and therefore available for use
by others (always of course with proper citation and
acknowledgment). We must keep in mind that unpublished
information is next to worthless. Perhaps
we should make a distinction in our terminology between
“announcement” and “publication.” For me to
announce that I have a 1,000 year chronology from
someplace or other does nobody any good whatever.
Only when I provide some meat in the form of measurements
is it at all useful.
http://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/kuniholm2001.pdf
“In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation.
The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part—and this is crucial—because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one.”
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
==Ha, ha, further writes: Can you explain to me why that would make a difference? From what I know of radiocarbon dating, it’s based on the amount of C14 a given organism absorbs during its lifetime, and C14 originates in the atmosphere. How would the amount of buried matter affect that?
Radiometric dating is done by comparing the ratio of C14 to C12. This has been known to fluctuate over time. Thus it must be calibrated and/or compared to organic samples of a known historical age. If the organic material currently deposited under the earth—which is estimated to be 175 times greater than our present living biosphere—was deposited there by a global flood, that would mean that there was a far greater amount of carbon available at the time of the global flood. This would have the effect of reducing the C14 to C12 ratio, thus giving greater apparent ages to organic specimens that lived before (or immediately after) the flood. You might also be interested in the following from Science:
“Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions... one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age range to which the method applies.” (Report on 14th Conference, 145 International Scientists, Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490.)
Finally, I find it highly ironic that dendrochronolgy is used to “calibrate” radiometric dating, while at the same time radiometric dating is used to “calibrate” dentrochronology. Talk about circular reasoning! Talk about the potential for massive fudge factors masquerading as genuine science!