Wrong, and wrong. Carbon dating gets the wrong results when it is performed incorrectly, but when it is performed correctly, it gets very consistent results. Also, it isn't even used to date dinosaur bones, they're too old.
9/27/2005 7:52:48 PM
Well, this brightened my day. This is nearly every creationist geology argument I've ever heard, condensed into one quick read.
11/30/2005 12:57:54 AM
Wow, everything that he could possibly get wrong, he did.
11/30/2005 2:33:36 AM
I dont know where to start correcting you.
6/11/2008 4:09:48 PM
You don't know anything about dating anything, so please stop pretending.
9/8/2011 4:35:42 PM
Here's the thing with carbon dating. It is a tool that needs to be used the proper way. The complaints against it are tantamount to saying if you can't build an entire house with only a 3/8ths wrench, then the wrench is worthless. Dating methods are useful tools, but need to be used in the proper way, for what they are intended .
I also like how he suggests that scientists just pick the results they "like" as if they do science the way creationists do, looking for answers that will prove a predetermined conclusion. Scientists would love to have evidence of something different from the norm, as long as it is defensible and backed by the evidence. Derp.
9/8/2011 4:45:34 PM
You're not even wrong.
Can you name ANY other radioactive dating systems other than carbon dating? And do you have any real idea how any of them work?
Hint: There's more than one.
9/9/2011 12:18:43 AM