Replies

It's to bad you don't accept carbon dating science. I am always pleasantly amazed how time after time modern scientific methods including carbon dating, used on archaeological digs verify the accounts of the Bible and the dates and locations of civilizations and events mentioned in the Bible.

Only a few folks still refuse to accept the science behind radiocarbon dating. Most don't know anything about the science, but they just can't handle the results!

Here are some good websites on the method for the lurkers:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

LOL- I gave plenty of links showing the innacuracies of those links and dating methods you provided- The sites went into much details explaining the problems

[Most don't know anything about the science, but they just can't handle the results!]

Funny- you keep listing those innacurate methods as though they were factual and reliable

http://creationwiki.org/Geochronology

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions

http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic

Very little info on this method

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods

http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating

http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you'd need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it's wrong:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/

http://www.rae.org/

There's plenty more- but let's let the folks who are discussing the clovis' have their thread. This is an interesting topic despite the problems with dating methods.