It's such a simple thing to do. But Radar won't do that. Is it because you Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king you'd discover that your creationist sources are lying to you yet again? In other words, the system Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king carbon production and decay is said to be in a state of balance or equilibrium. Modern radiocarbon dating doesn't make any such assumption.
It did once, but not anymore. There is a limited discussion of this in the wikipedia article linked above. A more elaborate discussion is here: If this is the best you've got re. Where is YEC's consistent interpretation of dating-related data radiometric dating, ice core layers, tree ring data, varves that allows them to line up with each other and Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king a conclusion of a total age of the universe of around 6, years?
Thank you for playing. There's no shame in not having the answers to this - not from a scientific point of view anyway - though you really should stop painting YEC as somehow "more compatible with the evidence".
At the moment, YEC is not compatible with the evidence and can't account for it, while mainstream science can tie it all together perfectly well, your attempts at strawman arguments notwithstanding. Maybe someday YEC will come up with an answer, but for the moment, they've got a big "we don't know" in this column. These comments show me two things - HLH does
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king read the posts, he skims them, does not understand them and Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king makes his Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king. As to Jon, never trust a
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king. They have proven to be liars Haeckel, Huxley, Dawkins, Gingerich, Plimer, Lyell among them who present boilerplate simplistic solutions to difficult problems.
Carbon dating is hilariously broken in Darwinist hands, as we have seen for their failure to accurately date things given them with no
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king. If they do not know the date they are "shooting then they can come up with anything. Case in point - Acambaro figurines. Dated as well over 1, years old until Lehigh figured out they looked like dinosaurs, and then they "took back" their findings.
Now, did you seriously want to claim that the above article contains the answer to the question? Or are you just blowing smoke and hoping people won't notice? Rolling a fallacy of composition
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king with ad hominems based on unsubstantiated claims. Are you sure you want to adopt this ridiculous logical stance? Are you willing to live with the consequences? Jon said "never trust a Creationist" so I said "never trust a Darwinist.
It is not who writes a thing, but the content of what is written. Night Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king made movies. His first few Hollywood movies were clever and made lots of money. The he came up with Lady in the Water, which was a film so incomprehensible and erratic and pointless that it required explanations both before and after.
It is rarely a good sign when the movie has to explain itself at the beginning. So I was point out the of Jon Woolf's statement. Whether it be a Darwinist, a Creationist, a ID guy or an elf, the evidence is the thing and not the worldview of the source. Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king are capable of doing good science and Creationists bad.
In my opinion it is often the opposite, but I do give credit where due. Deleted comment part B. And here's the TO conclusion on the figurines which happens to be pretty much the same as the what's written in the wikipedia article.
The only sources are pseudoscience journalists, creationists, and crackpots, who have obvious ulterior motives for gullibility. Their own dating results are discordant with each other and with the ages of the native cultures, and even attempting to do carbon Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king on the inorganic figurines shows their incompetence.
This "spam filtering" is ridiculous. I cant seem to post a link Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king all anymore. And even Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king comments are getting immediately deleted. I would hope that radar might do the right thing and recover Part A above but I'm not holding my breath. So, if anyone wants to find out the facts on those acambrio figurines for themselves, simply google "acambrio figurines" and "talk origins" or "acambrio figurines" and "wikipedia" and you'll get the straight goods on those little figurines that Radar likes to hold up as
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king that dinosaurs and man Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king. Man, that one cracks me up every time.
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king, please go read the talkorigins BS about the figurines and then read the post I made on them.
Wiki was probably sourced from talkorigins. In fact the Acambaro figurines is a great example of why talkorigins Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king a BS site and should never be as a source.
They will deliberately post false information and refuse to change it. DiPeso was a scammer who claimed to inspect a huge number of figurines in a very short time, in fact, his figures lie. He tried to purchase the figurines first, when rebuffed, he then chose to make a false about them which doubtless got him a paycheck up North. At the time of the findings, the figurines were authenticated by the Mexican government and both native and other archaelogists.
The Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king of Mexico sent four archaelogists to the site to confirm legitimacy. After DiPeso's obviously fake report, Charles Hapgood, Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Hampshire and professional investigator and author Earl Stanley Gardner decided to check things out for Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king in They presented figurines which were dated by Laboratory of Isotopes Inc.
In Arthur Young presented figurines the
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating, which was affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. They dated the figurines to around BC.
Both labs later tried to retract when they realized that they had agreed with ancient dates for dinosaur figurines! Talk about scientific dishonesty!! another archaelogist,Neal Steedy explored the area, found shards at a site farthe from the Julrud area and then had figurines from the Julsrud radiocarbon dated.
They were dated at to years old. He dismissed the results as he claimed the figurines could not have lasted that long in the ground! I dare you to read the following: Consider the extraordinary methods used by the investigators, going so far as to dig underneath the Sheriff's house which was built in Julsrud's findings were released in approximately and in hard, packed ground found more figurines! Researchers found buried figurines throughout the area. Salient points - they sought for and did not find the many kilns needed to have produced such Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king. Kids who found and sold them were selling them for pittances, less than the cost and effort involved in gathering the wood, the clay, the paints and other items needed to make such figurines.
Also, the dinosaurs represented by the figurines did NOT resemble artist's renderings of what dinosaurs were thought to look like in the 's and 50's. BUT they resemble what we now thing dinosaurs looked like.
In other words, the Acambaro figurines were made by people who knew more about the appearance of dinosaurs than Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king most renowned Paleontologists of the time! Wikipedia is what it is, open to pretty much anyone to write what
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king want. But I personally wrote to talkorigins pointing out to them that their information on Acambaro was pack of lies and they continue to promote those lies.
So as I have said before and
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king say again, if you use talkorigins as a source I know that they do
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king give a rip about truth so I not pay any attention to anything asserted by that organization.
Acambaro alone convicts them! I do hope people do research Acambaro by reading talkorigins and reading my two posts. Check out the links and make sure you understand the arguments.
Talkorigins does not have a leg to stand on, they are actually revealed to be illegitimate by this subject so I have no idea why Canucklehead would want the light shined on them in this matter? It Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king rather like John Wayne Gacy's lawyer asking the police to check Gacy's crawl space.
Your attempt to redirect the conversation is impressive, Radar, but unsuccessful. Your source did not tell the truth about radiocarbon dating. Why do you still that source reliable?
Why won't you even acknowledge the Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king Incidentally, Jon said "never Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king a Creationist" so I said "never trust a Darwinist. No, you should never trust a creationist. You should always check what they say with other sources. If a creationist says "scientists do
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king, X is flawed, and therefore scientists are wrong," then you should try to verify that scientists do in fact do X and that X is in fact wrong before you repeat the claim.
I'll admit that sometimes that's not an easy thing to do, but in this case it was easy as falling off a log. Hey Radar, Sorry I don't comment more often.
I have Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king on my RSS feed reader, so I do check out your
Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king whenever a new article comes out. Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs king I can't seem to get through the long articles, so I don't feel justified in commenting. Anyway, just a heads up. Amy Proctor is shutting down her blog. You might want to go over there and say goodbye. The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.
Tuesday, November 15, Flawed dating methods of Darwinists analyzed. This is the first in a not necessarily consecutive post on dating methods. Some of the posts will date from the 's, but don't be surprised.
Creation scientists have known for decades of some of the biggest flaws in the normal dating methods used by Darwinists.