Replies

discreditted? Yeah-0 sure it is coyote- you keep believing the assumptions in science are 'sound science' -

The only folks who are still debating these assumptions are doing so for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Much of the debate over the radiocarbon method has taken place in the journal Radiocarbon. You are invited to check out the level and the quality of the science being done in that journal, and what the science behind the assumptions actually is. Back issues are on-line for your perusal.

Care to address the tree ring duplications in abundant years, and the aneamic rings in bad years for the 'tree ring calibration' techiniques?

The tree-rings being used are the bristlecone pines, which grow in the White Mountains of southern California. In that environment, they are not so susceptible to multiple rings or lack of rings in the same year. But, don't you think scientists are bright enough to think of these things? There are ways of checking the accuracy of the tree-ring count. We have a number of recorded events with accurate historical dates--mostly volcanoes--which can be checked against the tree rings. This has confirmed the accuracy of the method during the historical era. There is no reason to think that the method does not extend to the prehistoric era.

I think your problem is that you just can't abide the results of radiocarbon dating. You don't seem to care enough about science in general, and this dating method in particular, to even learn the basics. But you have to oppose it because it disagrees with your religious belief. Fine, but don't try to call what you are doing science. It is apologetics (defense of religion).

Care to show how science jumped in a tiem machine and went back in time to calibrate their 'curve' which they convenienty add a 'wiggle' to whenever evidences don't support their curve dogma?

The curve is based on the tree-rings, which are then dated using the radiocarbon method. The difference between the conventional age and the tree-ring allows creation of a calibration curve. This compensates for atmospheric variation and produces pretty accurate dates. If there is a wiggle in the tree-ring dates, it is incorporated into the calibration curve, which I believe has been done in 10-year increments to about 12,400 years.

Care to venture a difinitive statement as to the accuracy of ice core samples being untarnished? Please do-

Sorry, I don't know anything about ice cores.

I've a few secular scientists I'd like you to become familiar with if you want to explore that terroritory.

Why don't you bring on the scientists, secular and otherwise, who deal with radiocarbon dating? That is what our debate is about.

Oh, and by the way, you repeated your mistake that radiocarbon dating is used to date things millions of years old (post #85). That is a very silly mistake, which I have corrected for you several times already. Radiocarbon dates go back about 50,000 years. Other forms of radiometric dating, using different isotopes, can extend much farther into the past.

This is an example of your lack of knowledge and your lack of willingness to learn even the basics of that which you are arguing against. You cut and paste from creationist websites without learning what the actual facts are, hence you fall victim to the simplest mistakes.

You must realize that it makes you look foolish, and that it detracts greatly from the credibility folks will accord to your arguments. (Your lack of care with spelling, grammar, and sentence construction don't help either.)

For the lurkers--I posted a series of good links on the radiocarbon dating method in Post #58 upthread.