[DittoJed2]

I'll use the reference given by your collegue above.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i9r2.htm
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.htm
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i9n.htm

[DittoJed2]

For those who do not wish to discount information just because it comes from a creationist organization, there is another article on radiometric dating being flawed at AiG found here:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

[ThinkPlease]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i9r2.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.hm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i9n.htm

So I took the time to read through these articles (have you taken the time to read through the links I've sent to you?). The author doesn't appear to have any sort of experience in dealing with radioactive dating, something that is readily apparent by reading his response to the person who is an expert in the field. Again, why do you think the opinion of an Ada programmer (which is what this guy is), is more knowledgeable in the field of radiometric dating than a Chemist who has spent his life learning about it? It's like going to a car mechanic to discuss matters of theology, he might have a pretty good idea of what is so and what is not so, but his level of knowledge of the depths of the subject will be lacking. Looking at this article, he's definitely out of his discipline here.