"Note the date on that article: 1963. What excuse do creationists have for misunderstanding or misrepresenting this issue, when it has been well understood in the scientific community FOR OVER FORTY YEARS? I guess the creationists are a little behind on their reading, eh? "
again, im going to have to play devil's advocate here. understand i know where you are coming from, but i simply have so many doubts on this issue.
you claim the scientific community knew something for 40 years. this is the same community that has spewed out global warming claims. this is the same community that backed up the Church's Flat Earth theory, along with Center of the Universe beliefe. they also, aside from the Church, but with it's backing had Alchemy as a respected study at one point, for centuries.
i do understand the context, and i agree with you that they found their mis-step. this, however, is not what i am attacking. i am attacking the idea of a 54 year old method as being held in standing with the Theory of Gravity. that one has been tried and true for generations. we still have the generation that discovered it walking around (though the respected Dr. Libby passed away before my time) this makes it less than classical science. it still needs a few more decades to become that.
"But this in no way invalidates the accuracy of radiocarbon dating when applied properly. Try reading more science sources, and fewer creationist ones."
why not simply read both in equal time? i do, and i stay skeptical of both to a degree. one source of info will get you a liberal's mind-set.
...
why not simply read both in equal time? i do, and i stay skeptical of both to a degree.
I'm guessing your skepticism of creation science has never been evident on these threads. Feel free to link the post that proves me wrong. I seem to remember you as just another impenetrably dense YEC.