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?
I have read many creationist websites' articles on radiocarbon dating. I do not find them credible. I have posted many of the reasons to you on past threads, but you have ignored them. That you ignore them does not make them go away. The facts I have posted, and indeed, all of science, are there, whether you say yea or nay.
Tree ring dating methods are saubject to variables that pervert the dating methods as well as concentrations to throw off the dates-
That happens not to be the case.
As I said- everythign beyond the approximate 4000 dates for radiometric dating is guess work and assumptiosn as outlined clearly in those links provided-
That happens not to be the case.
'Other dating methods'? Which ones coyote?
Other calibration methods. Read for comprehension.
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?
Whatever. Knock yourself out.
[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 are citing, without any understanding, various creationist websites; you are trusting, without any knowledge on your part, that they are accurate. You are wrong on both counts.
You are not pointing out "material which proves it's not accurate and it tells you why it's not." You are pointing out creationist, apologetic, screeds which do not accurately portray scientific understanding of the radiocarbon dating method. And, you seem to be doing this because you don't know the field yourself, and because you desperately need the results to come out supporting a young earth. Sorry, science leads where it leads, whether young earth creationists say yea or nay.
You should just admit that your are arguing from a religious belief, and stop trying to pretend to do science.