To: LightCrusader
It's nice to see that some people can still use reason and logic in the face of all the nutty evolutionist proselytizing. The carbon-dating method is the epitome of junk science.That's all very interesting, LightCrusader, but was Carbon 14 dating used in the study cited here?
35 posted on
02/16/2005 12:04:49 PM PST by
Alter Kaker
(Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
To: Alter Kaker
Given that no scientist worth his degree would believe that C14 dating could even give an age of 200,000 years or thereabouts, I would think not.
Seems to be a bit of creationist distraction to me.
43 posted on
02/16/2005 12:55:27 PM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Alter Kaker
That's all very interesting, LightCrusader, but was Carbon 14 dating used in the study cited here?Everybody's chuckling at you because carbon dating can only be used back to about 50,000 years.
PatrickHenry may have a link on his homepage to radiometric dating. It was a fairly simple article to follow for non-scientists. Or you can google on your own.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson