[I have told you over and over again that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 50,000 years. It is not used to date the age of the earth.]
Well by golly- ya got me on a misprint- I meant Radiometric Dating- So I’ll ask again: this time with the correctec word:
And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiometric dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiometric dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
First, I do not do that type of dating. My expertise is in radiocarbon dating.
Second, you have shown that you know little about science because your questions make no sense. You have to know something about a field of science to ask an intelligent question.
Did you ever consider that it was the rocks that were getting older, rather than the dating methods being adjusted?
Did you ever consider that tens of thousands of dates were being done, and the ones being reported in the popular media (where you would see them) were only the ones which bumped the age just a bit older? While the scientific literature (which you obviously do not read) reported all of the dates?
And did you ever consider that when scientists established the dates of certain rocks, they figured out where to look for even older rocks?
Or are you silly enough to expect that the very first time a rock was dated that they would discover the oldest rock ever?
Give it up. You simply do not have the makings of a scientist. You are unwilling to view the world as it actually is because your a priori belief is preventing you from doing so. That is the characteristic of a fundamentalist, rather than a scientist.