Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsThe American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
This is one of my favorite fields, so if anyone has any questions I will try to address them (on the morrow).
Interesting - do you have a reference on this, or like development of vestigial organs/parts? (I'm curious to learn a little more.)
I've often wondered how natural selection leads to the loss of working structures (i.e. my incredulity needs some resolution on this issue).
So many links, so little time...I am sure I will have some questions, but 'on the morrow' will certainly be too soon for me...but then I know where to find you, so no problem...thanks for the links...
No matter, truth is of no use to an evolutionist, and they even reinvent God himself around their evil belief system.
Thanks for the link, it was very interesting.
It's really sad to see discussion of such an awesome find aborted by the usual nonsense.
My mom used to raise collies. They were highly intelligent. She claimed that their vocabulary was upwards of 100 words. I believed her, and you could talk to those dogs as you would child, and they'd follow directions. It was amazing.
Lately, these threads have had discussions on two separate wavelenghts going at the same time.
Surely you're not suggesting that the pseudo science creationists would deliberately mislead the flock about the state of the evidence they're pretending to do scientific research on are you? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Why are the non-eyewitnesses claiming that the "meat" was on the outside?
So you believe the mineralized fossil was actually "soft"? LOL!!! I doesn't take to much of a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to mislead you does it?
Oh, you mean they'd use intelligently designed means to try to produce beneficial micro-evolutionary changes to an existing species?
Yes, I too would fear the prospect of those in power trying to intelligently design micro-evolutionary changes into our species.
Wow! That looks as real as a scene from an old Godzilla movie!
Thanks for your insights, TXnMA!
It's pretty obvious that most of the meat was in the story tellers bone head.
NOW you have me REALLY confused!!!
One very persuasive experiment they did was to look at the 'age' as a function of the amount of carbon used. If using more sample results in the sample looking 'older', you have a problem!
(My wife is a high vacuum scientist. When I told her about the sort of thing Humphreys and coworkers were trying to do, she laughed, and said 'don't these guys understand systematic errors?')
Hehe. Thanks for the ping. The march of Evolutionist desperation moves onward and downward. Can't wait for Coulter's new book. Evidently, she liked my tagline.. lol.
That's it! I'm confiscating your cat for excessive cuteness!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.