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.
What a load of utter crap coyote- NONE of your 'rebuttles' were valid except for one, and that one didn';t even address the facts lsited on the site but instead glommed onto one mistake on the site- ignoring the rest- it doesn't take too much to realize that all the dating methods are wonky- soemthign you've not addressed once except for an attempt to state that a site 'could be contaminated and thus throw off a reading that suggest younger dates'
[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. ]
Bzzzt wrong- errors are errors- insulting others doesn't negate that fact- State emphatically dating methods are accurate- you can't because you know it isn't true- oh you'll say "dates getchanged all the time, and that's how science works- but that's crap too- the changed dates ALL rely on guesswork, assumptions and opinion and are NOT factual
Still waiting for the rebuttles to the links I've posted- & sorry, but attackign their character or beleif doesn't make the errors go away
[You are citing, without any understanding, various creationist websites; you are trusting, without any knowledge on your part, that they are accurate.]
Cut the crap- I've got enough knowledge to iunderstand the methods have problems and WHY they have problems- Being a radio-carbon dating expert doesn't make those problems go away- more knowledge in the field doesn't magically the fact that dates over 4000 years go wonky and that is because you or anyone else HAS to rely on assumptions abotu constants in the past in order for your models to work- while you claim 'concentrations' make young dates invalid, you apparently dismiss concentration from contamination from outside sources when the dates are older.
RATE has done extensive testing with C-14 nad has much to say on the subject, but all you can do is point to talkorigins in a half-hearted effort to try to dispute RATE'S findings- Yuo use out of date 'proofs' and don't EVER answer when they are proven wrong. You've also not answered those sites assetions that the Decay/production should have already reached a constant many millions of years ago if the earth is billions of years old.--
You can keep saying "You know nothing about it" all you like- but the fact is that you either don't know anything or you don't know enough to even refute the problems brought up