How about it johnfolton? Care to take up carbon 14 dating in the Dating forum? Care to try to show how it is inaccurate and fails to support an old earth?
Can you support your argument, for a change, instead of just making unsupported assertions? Can you debate the issue without relying on the falsehoods and misrepresentations common on the creationist websites?
How many times have I and others tried to explain to you that the RATE BOYS are dating all the fossils young because the fossils are young is enough of a ratio for advanced science to date these fossils thousands not millions of years old.
P.S. I don't mind tagging a bit on dating threads but not a challenge due you continually call all my sources liars and not scientists. ha ha don't take it personally not calling you a liar just the old earth part is a lie. If you believe the old earth then your not a liar even if the old earth is a lie! Its like the saying dead doctors don't lie.
We went over this before and you just say this is a falsehood that they are misrepresentating the facts. How about evolutionists are misrepresenting the facts. Here is the information we've went over several times now. So the next time we tag you might have something to say about how they are misrepresenting the facts. Seems the rate boys do quite well with just the facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JOHN BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABRATORY*
D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
ANDREW A. SNELLING, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH*
An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ”age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.
http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
Here's more bias about giving PH.D. by acadamia of what an acceptable point of view or not, etc...{thought police?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Creationist earns Ph.D., gets attacked by scientists
by Krauze
Why can't it be, "Scientist earns Ph.D. Gets Attacked by Athiest Thought Police."
Although his thesis advisor describes his work as "impeccable", some have "argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology",
Should Marcus Ross have been forced to sign a statement, pledging eternal loyalty to Evolution and an Old Earth? Should he have undergone a polygraph test, ensuring that he didn't harbor any counter-consensus ideas? Myers think that Ross carrying out research he didn't agree with justifies labelling him a "fraud":
Is that how Myers think you get a doctoral degree? Just by "echoing ideas" As for Ross not believing the statements about millions of years from his own dissertation, that's the beauty of science - it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. As long as Ross' data and arguments hold up, it doesn't matter one bit what his beliefs are.
Is it a coincidence that Myers wants to force creationists to advocate their creationist beliefs in their scientific work? After all, he is also the one who thinks that researchers who are friendly towards intelligent design should be denied tenure. So if you privately have a telic perspective on the origin of life, you're a fraud, and if you openly advocate this perspective, you will be denied tenure. Head I wins, tail you lose.
Don't forget, PZ Myers and Michael Dini are both scientists. Or, as you also call them, peer reviewers.
http://telicthoughts.com/...ked-by-scientists/#comment-64650
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.