Replies

You keep posting basic low-level facts on the radiocarbon method, such as that it only extends some 50,000 years into the past, as if that should be hot news! Archaeologists are way ahead of you. We know those types of limitations and more, and we don't need cut-and-paste creationists to try to teach us how to do our jobs.

You also cite the reservoir effect as if that's something that is a serious problem for archaeologists. The reservoir effect is old news, I deal with that all the time. I have even done numerous comparisons of charcoal vs. shell to see what the extent of the reservoir effect is in the areas in which I work.

Your cut-and-paste also cites the problem of the reservoir effect when dealing with human bone, as fish in the diet can throw the age off. Actually sea mammals can be worse than fish. That's why when I radiocarbon date human bone I obtain the ¹³C and ¹⁵N stable isotope readings so that the percent of marine organisms in the diet can be ascertained and accounted for.

You are way out of your depth here. You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong (for religious reasons I presume) and you are surfing the net for anything that might help your position -- without understanding much about the subject at all.

Not very impressive. If you wish to convince anyone that the radiocarbon method is inaccurate, you have to really study and understand it first.

You keep posting basic low-level facts on the radiocarbon method, such as that it only extends some 50,000 years into the past, as if that should be hot news! Archaeologists are way ahead of you. We know those types of limitations and more, and we don't need cut-and-paste creationists to try to teach us how to do our jobs. You also cite the reservoir effect as if that's something that is a serious problem for archaeologists. The reservoir effect is old news, I deal with that all the time. I have even done numerous comparisons of charcoal vs. shell to see what the extent of the reservoir effect is in the areas in which I work. Your cut-and-paste also cites the problem of the reservoir effect when dealing with human bone, as fish in the diet can throw the age off. Actually sea mammals can be worse than fish. That's why when I radiocarbon date human bone I obtain the 13C and 15N stable isotope readings so that the percent of marine organisms in the diet can be ascertained and accounted for. You are way out of your depth here. You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong (for religious reasons I presume) and you are surfing the net for anything that might help your position -- without understanding much about the subject at all. Not very impressive. If you wish to convince anyone that the radiocarbon method is inaccurate, you have to really study and understand it first.

Stop blowing hot air!

The dating is based on a flawed assumption, that the environment has not undergone any dramatic change that would affect the ratio between the C-14 and C-12.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available for decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere woulld increase. If the atmospheres ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled organic remains would appear 11, 460 (2x5,730) years older etc. Consequently a 'radiocarbon year' would not correspond to an actual year....Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. Recent measurements show this....Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years which are typical of coal, probably have a much younger true date near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000years ago. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.245-246)

Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

Anything past that is conjecture.

All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.

Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.

You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong

And you seem to be setting up strawman.

I never said that radiocarbon dating is wrong, but that it is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

If you are getting any higher numbers, it is because your evolutionary assumptions are wrong.