[Oztrich Boy]

To understand please read the above link about it.

Your are under the illusion that the article supports a 6000 year old Earth? EPIC FAIL

[Kackikat]

No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:

This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:

http://www.earthage.org/OKyougotmyattention/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.

[Kackikat]

No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:

This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:

http://www.earthage.org/OKyougotmyattention/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.

[Kackikat]

No it doesn’t make my point, it is an unbeliever scientist condemning the creationist argument...it shows that the argument will not be resolved. I don’t have a copy of the Yale Study...but this link will show what I mean by fallible science when carbon dating:

This link validates my point, and that is that scientific research is “relative” to what has happened at the site the sample is taken and when:

http://www.earthage.org/OKyougotmyattention/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

be sure to read about HEAT CONTAMINATION.