I checked out the website you referenced. I went to the section titled How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating? and found it is largely tripe.
For example, the site states:
In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!This is standard creationist nonsense, copied from one creationist website to another without bothering to check its accuracy--of which there is none. The true story is presented in a recent Darwin Central blog.
The reason I check out the radiocarbon dating sections of these sites first is that I know that field, and can spot errors and nonsense quickly. And, if the site is so poor in this one section, what confidence should I have in other sections where I don't know the data as well?
But, I guess this is what we should expect from creation "science" eh?
Coyoteman I really didn’t expect much more than that in your response. Only pro-evolution info gets your full attention
Did you know that the site author was at one time a proponent of evolution? Walt Brown’s credentials are impecable. The information is presented mainly in laymans terms but provide material and endnotes that go far deeper than any other I’ve seen - including talkorigins.
Many things which you simply refuse to discuss here. I doubt you have read even 2% of this website and far less than that much with an open mind.
Tripe is simply your opinion - one that seems to spend more time attacking others on FR rather than reading well-researched reasoning for:
a)not only the hundreds of problems with evolution but also b)a complete historical framework that may describe events more closely parallel to the Biblical record than any other creation or apologetics website to date.