[sleepy_hollow]

This is extremely interesting. Even if you are not a creationist, as I readily admit I am, you should at least read the abstract. Bottom line is there is evidence to suggest that carbon dating (done using Carbon 14) casts doubt on the conventionally accepted dates for certain fossils. So much so, in fact, that a pattern appears to emerge that indicates a whole lot of stuff was snuffed out at the same time. Certainly should give one pause to eflect eiethre on the theories or on the dating methods at least. Please recall that dating of fossils is often done by reference to an assumed model for where the fossils should be found (it is circular logic, but that's just slant-foreheaded dumb old creationist me speaking).

By the way I work with some of the country's premier scientists and thinkers and have been doing so for over a 2 decades. I can assure you that these folks definitely put their pants on the same way non-scientists do. They are fallible, opinionated and prejudiced just like the est of us. Their profession does not exempt them from the human race.

[Quix]

When God

ROLLS BACK THE HEAVENS LIKE A SCROLL,

I expect a lot of gaping jaws.

And perhaps no small amount of mobbing the nearest rocks, crannies and holes to hide in.

[Karl_Lembke]

This is extremely interesting. Even if you are not a creationist, as I readily admit I am, you should at least read the abstract. Bottom line is there is evidence to suggest that carbon dating (done using Carbon 14) casts doubt on the conventionally accepted dates for certain fossils. So much so, in fact, that a pattern appears to emerge that indicates a whole lot of stuff was snuffed out at the same time. Certainly should give one pause to eflect eiethre on the theories or on the dating methods at least. Please recall that dating of fossils is often done by reference to an assumed model for where the fossils should be found (it is circular logic, but that's just slant-foreheaded dumb old creationist me speaking).

Right now, it seems there's a certain amount of background carbon-14 in many samples, particularly in coal. Functionally, this means samples older than a certain age will have C-14 levels that can't be distinguished from the background noise within experimental error. (Recall, because radioactive decay is random, there's always some statistical error in a count. And since any sample, no matter how large, is a finite sample, there will be a certain variation in concentrations of various constituents due to sampling theory.)

The ICR seems to be advocating the theory that carbon dating is unreliable. I'm curious to see how they explain the very good correspondence between radiocarbon dates and actual ages in wood of known age (determined by counting tree rings).

[Virginia-American]

They are fallible, opinionated and prejudiced just like the est of us. Their profession does not exempt them from the human race.

Hence the absolute necessity of peer review, helps keep 'em honest.