[jsanders2001]

> As long as certain branches of science are locked into the the eons mindset, it's doubtful they'll stumble over the truth of the matters.

I've never been one to put much faith in the carbon dating method. They have done tests on objects they know the actual age of and the results have been way off.. There are tons of articles out there that show there are very serious flaws in the system that are written by scientists themselves.

[Sacajaweau]

If a rock is 1 million years old. And flints are made from that rock. Are the flints 1 million years old?

This is a problem I have with a bazillion finds.

[Sacajaweau]

It’s called Grant Money. As long as there is “CONFLICT”, the money flows.

[PeterPrinciple]

I’ve never been one to put much faith in the carbon dating method. They have done tests on objects they know the actual age of and the results have been way off.. There are tons of articles out there that show there are very serious flaws in the system that are written by scientists themselves.

---

The current generation thinks once you have a number you have the truth. number don’t lie.

They were never taught to check their math in elementary school. And have no common sense to compare an answer with. With slide rules, you had to understand the number.

[BroJoeK]

Resettozero: "As long as certain branches of science are locked into the the eons mindset, it's doubtful they'll stumble over the truth of the matters."

jsanders2001: "I've never been one to put much faith in the carbon dating method....
There are tons of articles out there that show there are very serious flaws in the system that are written by scientists themselves."

Here are your problems:

1. It's not just "carbon dating methods".
   There are dozens of different methods for counting the years backwards in time.
   Carbon-14 is just one of those, good back to circa 60,000 years ago.
   But there are many other radiometric dating methods, some of which can date back billions of years.
   And beyond those are such things as tree rings and growth rings on stalagmites in caves, or layers from ice-cores in Antarctica.
   Beyond those are such methods as Thermoluminescence dating and even measuring the rate of mutations in species' DNA.

   All of these many methods have issues, especially when done improperly, but correctly done they produce results consistent with each other and with old-earth (4.5 billion years) estimates of geological time scales.

2. No serious scientists, none, doubt the legitimacy and validity of these dating methods, when done properly.
   But there are issues and pitfalls in any method, and those are what you see reported by conscientious scientists in peer-reviewed publications.

3. Anti-science efforts to discredit these dating methods were not themselves legitimate.
   All they prove is that if you give false or incomplete information to a laboratory, it will produce bad results -- GIGO, garbage in = garbage out.
   No surprises there.

Bottom line, what science reports is: the Earth, and life on it, is billions of years old, and there's no serious confirmed scientific evidence falsifying that theory.

[SunkenCiv]

"Me not like radiocarbon dating" is a non sequitur, because that wasn't the method used to date the artifacts -- but it is a common regurgitated straw man argument that originates at various smear websites devoted to trashing the scientific method. At its source, it stems from either ignorance or dishonesty, or both.