[LiteKeeper]

Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years.

Often they date the fossils by the geologic formations they are found in. But if you talk to geologists, they date the strata of rocks by the fossils they find.

Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"?

[Junior]

This is a creationist canard. Rocks are dated using one or more of about a dozen radiological methods.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective {Dr. Roger C. Wiens}

[tortoise]

Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years.

Carbon-14 dating is only one of a half-dozen or so radioisotopes they routinely use for dating. Different isotopes have different usable ranges. For example, the commonly used Potassium-40 dating is good from about 100,000 years to at least 4 billion years, though having a lower resolution than Carbon dating (which can be very precise). Obviously they would use something other than Carbon-14 to measure age, most likely Potassium-40.

[DaveyB]

Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years. Often they date the fossils by the geologic formations they are found in. But if you talk to geologists, they date the strata of rocks by the fossils they find. Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"?

Exactly my point. Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument. But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong. If radiometric dating gives outrageously bad dates for objects of known age, then how can it be used reliable for objects of unknown age. So the “scientific” community has based their religion on the following reasoning – “you know the age of the fossils by the age of the rocks and the age of the rocks is known by the age of the fossils and if you don’t believe them then the radiometric dating can verify the age of rocks and we know that that’s correct because radiometric dating is usually wrong except when it is verified by the age of the fossils.”

[carenot]

Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"?

Why are you trying to insert reason on this thread?

[rwfromkansas]

I am no evolutionist, but there are other ways to date a fossil besides just the semi-unreliable carbon dating.