Replies

ah but i have no problems with the accuracy (or at least semi accuracy) of the dating method up until about 4000 or so years ago- which I might point out are generally corroberated by accompanying evidences such as texts, known dates backed up by records etc. - beyond that though things get sketchy, and I have no problems not being able to pinpoint certain events beyond these times- As I mentioned, everythign beyond that is pretty much speculation and opinion. We know certain people and civilizations lived according to biblical recordings, and we can gustimate beyond the 4000 year limitations of carbon dating, but really, there's plenty of archeological and dating records to show the more recent events were factual, so there's really no need to doubt the earlier records that can't be dated with pinpoint accuracy of the bible either- no worries. There's enough archeological evidences to guestimate timelines fairly accurate for earlier recorded events and civilizations

Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is flawed by creationist propaganda.

There is no "4000 year limitation" -- that is a product religious apologists who feel they need to deny the findings of science in order to safeguard their religious beliefs.

The tree-ring calibration extends past 12,000 years in the western US and other calibration methods go much farther back in Europe. Your denial of these is no more than whistling past a graveyard.

Even worse, you have shown in various threads that you have no actual scientific knowledge or understanding of radiocarbon dating. You have never shown that you know the science, nor have you ever indicated that you have done any radiocarbon dating.

For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.

You might as well regale us with your views on cosmology and string theory. Those tales will all have about the same usefulness, and the same scientific accuracy -- i.e., none.

didn't bother reading any of those links did you?

Tree ring dating methods are saubject to variables that pervert the dating methods as well as concentrations to throw off the dates-

As I said- everythign beyond the approximate 4000 dates for radiometric dating is guess work and assumptiosn as outlined clearly in those links provided-

'Other dating methods'? Which ones coyote? They all have problems and MUST rely on presumptions and opinion- don't be getting all high and mighty here with the petty insults- Shall I statethat the fact that you don't realize this, or admit this negates anythign you have to say on the subject as well? Shall I ridicule you for not understanding something fully yet pontificating as though you do regardless of the fact that you dismiss coutner-evidences?

[For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.]

That's a load of crap- and you know it- I'm not pontificating- I am simply pointing you to the material which proves it's not accurate and it tells you why it's not- I've summarized, and pointed- so climb down off your little high horse- will ya?

you can get all pissy and dig in your heels and deny evidences agaisnt dating methods, and go after folks because someone points out the errors in dating methods that might shake your religion, but leave the personal insults out- address the facts- keep it mature. Science doesn't run from the facts just because they present problems, and doesn't attack the messenger, they address the problems presented if possible. Let's do the same here- bring it up a notch.