[general_re]

Carbon 14 is good for no more that 13-15K years.

No. Simple counting of C-14 (the traditional method) is good to about 50K years ago, and by using a cyclotron and a mass spectrometer, C-14 dating can be extended to about 100,000 years ago.

As for the alleged circularity of fossil dating, I might point out that there are other external indicators used to calibrate and judge the accuracy of radioisotope dating - you really ought to investigate the techniques used before asserting such a thing.

[Starbreed]

Wow! what are these other ways. Don't leave us in suspense. Or else we'll think you're spoofing.

General statements as rebuttal don't wash. Gotta have numbers from the scientists. The circular reasoning in question at least had terms I could identify with. Just give a few external indicators and the name of that radioisotope they help calibrate for accuracy...

[LiteKeeper]

I have investigated. Will you acknowledge, however, that there is a tremendous amount of disagreement from one dating method to another? And that all dating methods are based on certain presuppositions - most of which have no true means of calibrating.

[gore3000]

As for the alleged circularity of fossil dating, I might point out that there are other external indicators used to calibrate and judge the accuracy of radioisotope dating - you really ought to investigate the techniques used before asserting such a thing.

Perhaps the researchers should first state how they arrived at the dates. They never seem to do so. The legitimacy of the dating is just as important as the fossil itself.