what's nonsense about them coyote? Mt. St Helens showing false readings, Lava flows also showing false readings- beyond a certain date carbon dating is useless.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
There's a more accurate dating methods from Zircons I beleive it is- Gah- i had all this info too- I can't remember if it is helium or some other element that escapes at a set rate-
Here's part of what I had- I did reformat and lost muich of what I'd found- but here's a short list I had saved- some are Christian some not- But despite some being Christian- is it an automatic discredit by you? Because what they present is fact:
Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you'd need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
--At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties--
Thanks. Fifty thousand years plus or minus 11,000 years is still greater than 6,000 years.
Dendrochronology actually supports the radiocarbon method; the calibration curve for the US is now past 12,600 years (not 10,000).
If you think you have evidence for a 6,000 year old earth or for inaccuracy in the radiocarbon method, then post it. Long cut and pastes that you don't understand don't help your argument.