Your link leads to a page of additional links. Rather than try to wade through them all I looked at the first link (which I have examined before).
The article deals with radiometric dating, and the section on radiocarbon dating (which is what we have been discussing) concludes with:
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
Anyone who attempts to calibrate a scientific method by reference to a mythical flood is not doing science. They are doing apologetics (defense of religion).
Is there any better science on any of the other links? So far, your links are just a waste of our time.
--Is there any better science on any of the other links?--
No. See my 264.
No sir that wasn't the only point being made on that site- and attempting to disprove every point made based on ONE point being discussed is disingenuous and amounts to dismmissing everything simply because somehwere in the article the name God or flood or some similiar point is mentioned- there ar lots of FACTS in those articles that do NOT rely on the mention of that one point about hte flood- and you're attemptiong to misrepresent the whole by picking and choosing something you perceive as innacurate- The site also goes on the explain WHY adjustments could JUST AS validly be used to account for the anomilies that throw off the radio carbon dating-
the trueorigin site also goes into great detail the facts showing why different dating methods are wrong and can't be trusted and why those asserting old age MUST make assumptons based on error in order to come up with hteir findings-
Sure they'rew a waste of your time because you autom atically dismiss somethign hwen they make a point like a flood could very well have accouinted for for what they are findijng- incase you missed it- the article ALSO said the flood model has to be very carefully applied-
Take a look at that trueorigin site- but the creationontheweb site also has plenty of scientific fact for you to noodle over if you can get around the fact that they might mention God now and again